.•-^^ 






vV 



.>■ 



.V^^ 



<^^' 



0- 






' ^^ 






.0- 



A 



x\^ 









•>:^^""^ 






-^ 



A^^ 



> v'^ 



o 0' 






^. ''' 





''^^> 


•\ 




v^^ 


j>' 


0^^' 







<^- > 



■^ . v> N 



.00. 



^^ 



cP^ . 



oo' 



.H 






'/- 


■^ 1 


J 1 1 


C' 






•-fj 






<^- 






'^^> 


.^^^' 




.•S 


•^. 



N^' -^^ ^' 



^\' 













\^ 



>- -''. . -^ .A-' c^, '-^ 



'A 



y 






:^ - ,c;^<^ 



ex, * 



=5 


A^^" 


■7- ' ■■ ■. -^ 


-~-^" 






^A v^^ -^ 










"ft:: 1^^' 






-\^^^-- 






^> .^^ 



o. 



\^ 






DOMESTIC SLAVERY 




CONSIDERED 



AS A SCRIPTURAL INSTITUTION 



IN A CORRESPONDENCE 



BETWEEN 



THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, 

OF BEAUFORT, S. C, AND 

THE REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, 

OF PROVIDENCE, R. I. 



REVISED AND CORRECTED 

BT THE AUTHORS. 



NEW YORK: 
PUBLISHED BY LEWIS COLBY, 

15J2 Nassau-street. 

BOSTON: 
GOULD, KENDALL AND LINCOLN. 

1845. 






%:^ s N •;. v. ,, ,, ^,^^- 



E4 



. r^'. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by 

Richard Fuller and Francis Wayland, 

Sn the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern DisUict 

of New York. 



INTRODUCTION. 



In compliance with the wish of my friend and 
brother, the Rev. Dr. Fuller, the joint author with 
me of the following pages, I offer a few words by 
way of introduction. 

The origin and progress of this correspondence 
may be thus briefly stated . 

In the month of November last, at the request of 
the editor of the Christian Reflector, Dr. Fuller 
addressed a letter to that paper, presenting in brief 
his reasons for believing that Domestic Slavery is 
sanctioned by the Scriptures, and is therefore not 
always a sin. In this letter several allusions were 
made to the publications on this subject both of the 
late lamented Dr. Channing and myself. Had this 
eminent man been spared to us, the duty of de- 
fending what we both believed would have fallen 
into abler hands. It having pleased God to call 
him to his rest, this duty seemed to devolve upon 
me. I immediately communicated my intention 
to Dr. Fuller, and was gratified to learn that it 
met with his hearty concurrence. 

I accordingly commenced a series of letters, in 
which I attempted to examine the various topics 



IV INTRODUCTION. 

suggested in the letter above alluded to. These 
were immediately answered in a series of letters 
by Dr. Fuller. When at the request of several 
of our friends it was determined to publish the 
correspondence in a more permanent form, we 
preferred to print the whole in the same volume, 
in order that both of the views taken of this sub- 
ject might be presented together both at the North 
and the South. At the suggestion of Dr. Fuller, 
I have added the closing letter. The design of 
this letter is not to prolong the correspondence by 
the addition of new matter, but rather to ofier some 
explanations which seemed to be necessary, and 
also to present more clearly the bearing of the one 
argument upon the other, so that the points of 
agreement and difference micrht be rendered more 
manifest. I should have sent this letter to Dr. F. 
for his revisal, but the ink on the last page was 
not dry when the printer demanded the " copy." 

Our different views are now laid before the 
public. I think that the letters of Dr. Fuller must 
in many cases modify the views, and in still mort; 
the feelings, of Christians at the North. Whether 
mine will have the same effect at the South, I am 
unable to determine. If, in any manner, the cause 
of truth shall be advanced ; and, especially, if the 
disciples of Christ, by more clearly perceiving the 
sentiments of each other, shall faid that the ground 



[NTRODTJCTION. V 

for the exercise of Christian charity is both wider 
and firmer than they had apprehended, some good 
at least will have arisen from this discussion. 

In behalf of my brother and myself, I commend 
this correspondence to the disciples of Christ, both 
at the North and the South, in the humble hope that 
it may be the means of directing a calm yet earnest 
attention to this important subject. F. W. 

Providbncb, March 18, 1845, 

22* 



CONTENTS. 



Pags 

The Letter from Dr. Fuller to the Editor of the 

10 
Christian Reflector, 1 

DR. WAYLAND's letters TO DR. FULLER. 

Letter I. — Errors on both sides, ...... 13 

Letter II. — Definition of Slavery — Two meanings 
of the terms Moral Evil — Slavery a violation 
of Human Right, .21 

Letter III. — The holding of Slaves does not neces- 
sarily involve guilt — Principles by which the 
innocence or guilt is to be determined, ... 34 

Letter IV. — Examination of the Argument in favor 

of Slavery from the Old Testament, ... 48 

Letter V. — The Doctrine of Expediency, ... 63 

Letter VI. — The Argument in favor of Slavery 

from the New Testament, 76 

Letter VII. — The method of prohibiting Slavery •■ 
in the New Testament — Principle and permis- 
sion, 94 

Letter VIII. — ^The duties devolving on Christian 

Slaveholders, 109 



VUl CONTENTS. 

DR. fuller's letters TO DR. WAYLAND. 

Letter I. — The Southern States not answerable for 

the existence of Domestic Slavery, .... 127 

Letter 11. — Slavery is not to be confounded with 

the abuses of Slavery, 138 

Letter III. — Slavery proper, no violation of right — 
Analogy with civil government — Despotism — 
Comparison of the condition of Slaves with 
that of laborers in other countries, . . . .148 

Letter IV. — The Argument from the Old Testa- 
ment, 166 

Letter V. — The Argument from the New Testa- 
ment — Argument, Inference, Proof, Demon- 
stration, 184 

Letter VI. — The mode of teaching by principle in 
this case at variance with the character of God 
— The practice of the primitive Church, . . 203 
Dr. Wayland's closing letter, 236 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



Letter froTii the Rev. Richard Fuller to the Editor 
of the Christian Rejiector, 

Mr. Editor — 

I comply at once, and in as few words as possi-- 
ble, with your request, and state why I do deny 
that slavery is a moral evil ; and let me request 
you, once for all, to bear in mind that this is the 
thing affirmed and denied. You say slavery is 
itself a sin ; it is therefore always a sin ; a sin 
amid any circumstances ; a crime which must in- 
volve the criminal in perdition unless he repents : 
and should be abandoned at once, and without 
reference to consequences. This is the abolition 
doctrine ; and at Philadelphia it was reiterated in 
every variety of phrase ; and when even moderate 
men, and men seemingly very kind and calm in 
private, mounted the rostrum and felt the oratorical 
afflatus, we invariably heard, not arguments, but 
denunciations of this sort ; we were sure to have 
eternal changes rung on the moral evil of slavery, 
the sin of slavery, the abominable guilt of slavery, 
— to be told that the inefiablG horrors of slavery 

1 



a LETTER TO THE 

did not admit of discussion, and to be seriously 
asked what article of the decalogue slavery does 
not violate. And because the South listened to all 
this, unchafed and patiently, one or two papers at 
the north (and I believe the Reflector among them) 
forgot themselves, and, when the meetings were 
over, indulged in paeans and flourishes which 
showed they did not comprehend us. Now what 
I do entreat is, that you will cherish no delusion 
on this point. Even Dr. Channing censures this 
conduct of the abolitionists, and says, " They have 
done wrong, I believe ; nor is their wrong to be 
winked at because done fanatically, or with good 
intentions; for how much mischief may be wroughl 
with good designs ! They have fallen into the com- 
mon error of enthusiasts, that of exaggerating their 
ohject, of feeling as if no evil existed but that which 
they opposed, and as if no guilt could he compared 
with that of countenancing and upholding it. The 
tone of their newspapers, as far as I have seen 
them, has often been fierce, bitter, and abusive." 
We are willing to weigh reasons, but assertion, 
and abuse, and blustering, will be heard in silence, 
because this subject is not to be treated in that^ 
style. A correspondent in your last number holds 
up to me, as a model, the magnanimity of the 
Northern States in emancipating a few slaves who 
had become a burden to^their owners. We under- 
stand this perfectly, and when in a similar situa- 
tion will abolish, too. This writer is, however, 
utterly blind, if he supposes that the question with 
us now is about the value of so much slave prop- 
erty only. It regards all kinds of property, al' 
civilization, and life itself; and in such a case to 



CHRISTIAN REFLECTOR. 3 

employ vituperation is at once a sin and a mistake. 
My chief hope for the Union is in the conservative 
power of religion, and the day is not far when 
that power will be required in all its stringency. 
Look at the distracted condition of this land ; re- 
flect on the appalling character of a civil war ; 
and if you love the country, or the slave, do not ' 
sever the bands which unite the Baptist churches. 
Compared with slavery, all other topics which 
now shake and inflame men's passions in these 
United States, are really trifling. They are only 
bonfires ; but Ucalegon burns next, and in that 
quarter God forbid that Christians should throw 
the first torches. 

If, however, slavery be a sin, surely it is the 
immediate duty of masters to abolish it, whatever 
be the result — this you urge, and this I grant ; and 
this brings me to the single matter in hand, on 
which I submit to you the following observations. 

1st. In affirming what you do, ought it not to 
give a pious mind pause, that you are brought into 
direet conflict with the Bible ? The Old Testa- 
ment did sanction slavery. God said, " Both thyU^ 
bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt 
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about 
you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bond- 
maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers 
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, 
and of their families that are with you, which they 
begat in your land : and they shall be in your 
possession. And ye shall take them as an inheri- 
tance for your children after you, to inherit them 
for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen for 
ever." And in the Gospels and Epistles, the insti- 



4 LETTER TO THE 

tution is, to say the least, tolerated. I do not now 
inquire as to the character of this slavery, nor is 
it important, for you pronounce slaveholding itself 
a sin ; a sin, therefore, semper et uhique, always, 
and everywhere, and in all shapes. I, for my 
part, have no difficulty, and am in no sort of di- 
lemma here, for I find my Bible condemning the 
abuses of slavery, but permitting the system itself, 
in cases where its abrogation would be a greater 
calamity than its existence. But you — how do 
you escape the charge of impiety ? 

2d. In the remark just made, I supposed, of 
course, that you admit some sort of slavery to have 
been allowed in the Old Testament, and suffered 
by Jesus and his apostles. A man who denies 
this will deny any thing, and only proves how 
much stronger a passion is than the clearest truth. 
Both Dr. Channing and Dr. Wayland, with all 
respectable commentators, yield this point ; but if 
this point be yielded, how can it be maintained 
that slaveholding is itself a crime ? No one can 
regard the noble president of Brown University 
with more esteem and affection than I do ; from 
his arguments, however, I am constrained to dis- 
sent. His position is this :* the moral precepts of 
the gospel condemn slavery; it is therefore crimi- 
nal. Yet he admits that neither the Saviour nor 
his apostles commanded masters to emancipate 
their slaves ; nay, they " go further," he adds, 
" and prescribe the duties suited to both parties in 
their present condition ;" among which duties, be 

* I need hardly say that the argument is the same as 
Paley, book 3, chapter 3. 



CHRISTIAN REFLECTOR. 5 

it remembered, there is not an intimation of manu- 
mission, but the whole code contemplates the con- 
tinuance of the relation. Here, then, we have the 
Author of the gospel, and the inspired propagators 
of the gospel, and the Holy Spirit inditing the gos- 
pel, all conniving at a practice which was a viola- 
tion of the entire moral principle of the gospel ! 
And the reason assigned by Dr. Wayland for this 
abstinency by God from censuring a wide-spread 
infraction of his law, is really nothing more nor 
less than expediency — the apprehension of conse- 
quences. The Lord Jesus and the apostles teach- 
ing expediency ! They who proclaimed and prose- 
cuted a war of extermination against all the most 
cherished passions of this guilty earth, and attacked 
with dauntless intrepidity all the multiform idola- 
try around them — they quailed, they shrank from 
breathing even a whisper against slavery, through 
fear of consequences ! ! And, through fear of 
consequences, the Holy Spirit has given us a canon 
of Scriptures, containing minute directions as to 
the duties of master and slave, without a word as 
to emancipation ! ! ! Suppose our missionaries 
should be detected thus winking at idolatry, and 
tampering with crime in heathen lands. 

Dr. Channing also says, — Paul satisfied himself 
with disseminating principles which would slowly 
subvert slavery. "Satisfied himself!" but was 
he so easily satisfied in reference to any act which 
he regarded as a dereliction from duty ? Hear 
how he speaks : " If any man that is called a 
brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, 
or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with 
such an one no not to eat.'" " Be not deceived ; 

1* 



6 LETTER TO THE 

neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with 
mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, 
nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the 
kingdom of God." " Whoremongers and adul- 
terers, God will judge." " In the name of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, 
and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the 
destructioii of the flesh, that the spirit may be 
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Such was 
Paul's language ; nothing but this unyielding, un- 
compromising condemnation of every sin could 
content him ; yet, as to " the unutterable abomi- 
nation of slavery," he is a temporizing palterer ! 
As to slavery, v/hich '• violates every article in the 
decalogue," although the apostle saw it all around 
him, and members of the Church guilty of it, he 
declined uttering a word — he is cowed into a time- 
server, a worker by concealed and tardy indirec- 
tions ! He " satisfies himself," while millions on 
all sides are sinking into hell through this crime — 
he "satisfies himself" with spreading principles 
which would slowly work a cure ! Craven and 
faithless herald ! and after this, with what face 
could he say, "I have kept back nothing" — "I 
have not shunned to declare the whole counsel of 
God ?" Arguments like these refute themselves ; 
they are the signal failures of minds masterful for 
the truth, but impotent against it ; and will con- 
vince every sincere inquirer that to denounce 
slaveholding as necessarily a sin, is to deal in loose 
assertion, and practically to range one's self with 
the infidel and scoffer. 



CHRISTIAN REFLECTOR. T 

3d. But will it not be laboring in the vocation 
of the infidel, to assert that the Bible does not con- 
demn slavery, especially when we know that in 
the times of the Apostles, masters were allowed to 
torture their slaves, and starve them, and kill them 
as food for their fish ? Is it not an insult to heaven, 
for one to defend such a system out of the Scrip- 
tures ? This question is very plausible ; but the 
answer is soon given, and it is the same which has 
been repeated over and over, viz., that the enormi- 
ties often resulting from slavery, and which excite 
our abhorrence, are not inseparable from it — they 
are not elements in the system, but abuses of it. 
What, indeed, is slavery ? "J define slavery,'^ says 
Paley, " to 'he an ohllgation to Iciborfor the benefit of 
the master, loithout the contract or consent of the 
slave.^' This is all that enters into the definition 
of slavery, and now what ingredient here is sinful ? 
Suppose a master to " render unto his servant the 
things that are just and equal ;" suppose the ser- 
vant well clothed and religiously instructed, and 
to receive a fair reward for labor in modes of com- 
pensation best suited to his condition ; might not 
the Bible permit the relation to continue, and might 
it not be best for the slave himself? Recollect 
that when you tell us of certain laws, and customs, 
and moral evils, and gross crimes, which are often 
incidents of slavery in this country, we agree with 
you, and are most anxious for their removal, and 
deprecate the incendiary movements of abolition- 
ists as tending only to retard and even arrest our 
success. On these topics Christians throughout 
the land ought to communicate in the spirit of love, 
and combine their prayers and co-operations. The 



8 LETTER TO THE 

abolitionists, however, arc not among those with 
whom we can thus associate. They occupy a 
position hostile alike to us, and to the word of God, 
and to every principle of charity. They do not 
attack the accidents of slavery, and attempt to show 
that they are essentials, but slavery itself they stig- 
matize as an unutterable crime, and slaveholders 
as on a footing with thieves and pirates. 

Is it to be expected that such libels will convince 
persons here, or that hard words will commend any- 
body as wiser and more courageous and better 
than the Saviour and his apostles ? Examine all 
the anti-slavery publications, and what do they 
contain ? Denude them of bold assertion and un- 
measured invective aijainst the accessories of sla- 
very, and what is left ? The simple question is, 
whether it is necessarily, and amidst all circum- 
stances, a crime to hold men in a conditionwhere they 
labor for another without their consent or contract ? 
and in settling this matter all impertinences must 
be retrenched. But, if impertinences be removed, 
what remains in the abolition treatises ? For ex- 
ample, slavery in these States may or may not be 
different from that mentioned in the Bible, and this 
may be a very important inquiry ; but it is not 
the inquiry before us. So, with regard to the 
cruelty too often practised by unprincipled men : 
here is guilt, guilt punishable by our laws, and 
which should exclude such persons from Christian 
fellowship ; the crime, however, is not slavehold- 
ing, but cruelty. The popular argument, that a 
human being should not be treated as a chattel, is 
in the same category of impertinences. The 
proposition is self-evident, but wholly irrelevant, 



CHRISTIAN REFLECTOR. 9 

since it is by no means an attribute of slavery that 
a master may treat his slave as a chattel ; the 
Bible forbids this, and every feeling of our nature 
rises up and must forever and effectually prevent 
it. Slavery is bondage, and nothing more.^ The 
slave has his rights, many of which are protected ^ 
by our laws, and all by the Bible. The power of 
the master to transfer his authority, surely does not 
alter the character of that authority ; and to con- 
found this with his right in things which he may 
destroy at pleasure, is to overlook the plainest dis- 
tinctions. It seems monstrous to you that a man 
should be the property of another man ; but why 
is it so monstrous ? Simply because you suppose 
that the word '^properly'' involves a degradation to 
the state of a chattel. This, however, is plainly*, 
fallacious. Property in my furniture is one thing ; ^ 
property in my horse is a very different thing ; 
and property in a slave entirely distinct still. To 
treat the brute as I might a chair, would be bar- 
barous ; and to use the slave as I might the brute, 
would justly make me infamous in any society, 
and draw down the vengeance of laws, human and 
divine. Property in a slave is only a right to his^ 
service without his co?isent or contract ; and if this 
be necessarily criminal, then the authority of a 
father over his child, and of a government over its 
citizens, must be criminal too. 

I might easily protract these remarks, but it is 
unnecessary. Let it be recollected that the only 
proposition is this abstract assertion : slavery is 
itself a sin — always and hy necessity a sin ; and it 
appears to me you must either abandon the Bible, 
or make it teach an expediency and " keeping 



10 LETTER TO THE 

back" of truth, which it abhors, or modify your 
views. The matter stands thus : the Bible did 
authorize some sort of slavery ; if now the abuses 
admitted and deplored by me be essentials of all 
slavery, then the Bible did allow those abuses ; if 
it be impossible that revelation should permit such 
evils, then 3''ou must either reject the Scriptures, 
as some abolitionists are doing, or concede that 
these sins are only accidents of slavery, which 
may, and perhaps, in cases of many Christians, 
do exist without them. Before I dismiss this 
subject, I would glance at two arguments which 
are sometimes urged, and require a passing notice. 

The first is thus summed up by Dr. Wayland : 
" The manner in which the duty of servants or 
slaves is inculcated, therefore, atibrds no ground 
for the assertion, that the gospel authorizes one 
man to hold another in bondage, any more than 
the command to honor the king, when that king 
was Nero, authorized the tyranny of the emperor, 
or that the command to turn the other cheek when 
one is smitten, justifies the infliction of violence by 
an injurious man." To this the reply is easy. 
The gospel does not recognise either Nero or the 
injurious man as a Christian brother, but it does 
so recognise those who hold slaves. 

The second argument is thus put by Dr. Chan- 
ning. " Polygamy was allowed to the Israelites, 
was the practice of the holiest men, and was com- 
mon and licensed in the age of the apostles. But 
the apostles nowhere condemn it, nor was the re- 
nunciation of it made an essential condition of ad- 
mission into the Christian Church." And of this 
the sophistry is hardly specious. What if all that 



CHRISTIAN REFLECTOR. 11 

is affirmed be granted ? it would only prove that 
polygamy is not sinful, and how is this connected 
with the matter at issue ? But the gospel does 
forbid, and did at once abolish polygamy. 

That those who hold slaves are unfit members 
for a Christian church, is a novel doctrine, a new 
light, which would have been scouted from our 
churches fifty years ago. But no polygamist has 
ever been admitted or tolerated as a Christian since 
the establishment of Christianity. The Saviour 
expressly gave a new law as to divorce ; and the 
very letter of that precept, and every word in the 
epistles as to marriage, recognise and require only 
one wife. Jesus says, " Whosoever putteth away 
his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery. ^^ 
Now what constitutes the adultery 1 Not ^'■•putting 
away his wife,''^ but " marrying another ;" there- 
fore he who marrieth another without putting away 
is guilty. Paul says, '-' For the woman which 
hath a husband, is bound by the law to her hus- 
band so long as he liveth ; but if the husband be 
dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband ; 
so then if while her husband liveth she be married 
to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." 
'■ To avoid fornication, let every man have his own 
vv'ife, and let every woman have her own hus- 
band." Is not this express enough ? Besides, it 
is a mistake in Dr. Channing and others to suppose 
that polygamy was common in the days of the 
Saviour and his apostles. The Roman and Gre- 
cian laws did not permit it ; and such are the in- 
conveniences and evils of the custom, that it had 
nearly ceased in Judea : hence, in the whole New 
Testament not a single instance is even alluded to. 



12 LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN REFLECTOR. 

No further notice was therefore required than the 
lansuase of Christ and the directions in the Epis- 
ties. But slavery was everywhere a part of 
the social organization of the earth ; and slaves 
and their masters were members together of the 
churches ; and minute instructions are given to 
each as to their duties, without even an insinua- 
tion that it was the duty of masters to emancipate. 
Now I ask, could this possibly be so, if slavery 
were "a heinous sin ?" No! every candid man 
will answer, no ! What, then, are we to think of 
those who revile us as pirates and thieves, and ful- 
minate anathemas and excommunications against 
every Christian at the South, no matter what his 
conduct or character, simply because he will not 
submit to the arrogant behests of mortals who at 
best are, like himself, loaded with imperfections ; 
and because he esteems the Bible a safer directory 
than the dogmas of men. most of whom are every 
day proving themselves destitute of the sound mind 
and -charity of the gospel — ^of people who are es- 
sentially monomaniacs — who cannot live without 
running into some insanity — who, if slavery were 
abolished, would be just as mad upon amalgama- 
tion, or masonry, or Millerism, or some other mat- 
ter — and with whom, in fine, whatever your course 
may be as to us, neither you, nor anybody at the 
North who loves Christ and the gospel better than 
self, and strife, and fanatical intolerance, will long 
be able to harmonize ? 

In the charity of the gospel, and with all respect, 
I am, &c., R. FULLER. 

Beaufort, S. C. 



DR. WAYLAND'S LETTERS. 



LETTER I. 
TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

I have read with great interest your letter on 
Domestic Slavery in the Christian Reflector of the 
present week. Although it is addressed to the 
editor, yet as you have specially referred to senti- 
ments which I have elsewhere advocated, I pre- 
sume you will not consider it obtrusive, if I ask 
the privilege of offering a few remarks in illus- 
tration of the doctrines from which you dissent. I 
fully believe that you, equally with myself, desire 
to arrive at the truth on this question. If by the 
kind and fraternal exhibition of our views we can 
throw any light upon this difficult subject, we shall, 
I am sure, perform an acceptable service, both to 
the Church of Christ, and to our beloved country. 

With many of the sentiments in your letter I 
heartily coincide. I unite with you and the late 
lamented Dr. Channing, in the opinion that the tone 
of the abolitionists at the north has been frequently, 
I fear I must say generally, " fierce, bitter, and 
abusive." The abolition press has, I believe, from 
the beginning, too commonly indulged in exag- 
gerated statement, in violent denunciation, and in 
coarse and lacerating invective. At our late Mis- 
sionary Convention in Philadelphia, I heard many 
things from men who claim to be the exclusive 
friends of the slave, which pained me more than I 

2 



14 DR. avayland's letters. 

can express. It seemed to me that the spirit which 
many of them manifested was very different from 
the spirit of Christ. I also cheerfully bear testi- 
mony to the general courtesy, the Christian urban- 
ity, and the calmness under ])rovocation, which, in 
a remarkable degree, characterized the conduct of 
the members from the South. 

While, however, I say this, justice requires mc 
to add that I seem to have perceived grave errors in 
the manner in which this subject has been treated 
in the slaveholding States. If, at the north, the 
ri^ht of free discussion has been abused, I think 
that frequently, at the south, this right has been 
denied to American citizens. I have seen legis- 
lative messages which have, in substance, asserted 
that the people of this country have no right to 
discuss the subject of slavery at all. I am sure 
that you will agree with me in condemning every 
assumption of this kind. There is no subject what- 
ever which I have not a perfect right to discuss, in 
the freest and fullest manner, in public or in pri- 
vate, provided I act with an honest intention to set 
before men what I consider to be important truth, 
and address myself to their understanding and 
conscience. I claim this right as a citizen of the 
United States; or rather, I claim it by a far higher 
title, as an intelligent creature of God. I can only 
surrender it with my life. I must always treat the 
threat of abridging it as an insult to the nature 
which has been given me by my Creator. If I 
abuse this right, I may be justly punished, and I 
grant that the punishment, both civil and social, 
should be exemplary. The right, however, as I 
have stated it, still remains interwoven with the 



DR. wayland's letters. 15 

essential elements of my intellectual and moral 
nature. 

I rejoice that the question is assuming a new 
aspect. I rejoice that a brother from the south 
has invited this discussion, and that there is now 
an opportunity afforded for freely exchanging our 
sentiments with each other. Should I abuse this 
right, should I utter a word that would tend need- 
lessly to wound the feelings of my Southern breth- 
ren, there is not one of them tliat will bo as deeply 
pained as myself. I have never yet visited the 
Southern States. There may be cases in which, 
from ignorance of the modes of thinking and forms 
of expression which prevail among my Southern 
fellow-citizens, I may, inadvertently, seem not suf- 
ficiently to regard their feelings. I do not antici- 
pate that such a case will occur. But should it 
occur, I have only to ask that I may be considered 
as an honest and kind man, desiring to hold forth 
what he believes to be truth ; and that if I may 
seem in this respect to err, it may be imputed, not 
to an intention to give pain, but merely to my igno- 
rance of the modes of thought peculiar to a state 
of society with which I am not familiar. 

I would, in passing, offer another suggestion. 
The ground which is at present taken by the South, 
in regard to the whole question of slavery, seems 
to me to be of recent origin. At the time of the 
adoption of the Constitution, I suppose it to have 
been very generally acknowledged throughout this 
country, that slavery was an evil, and a wrong, 
and that it was, tacitly at least, understood to be 
the duty of those States in which it existed, to re- 
move it as soon as practicable. Pennsylvania had 



16 DR. wayland's letters. 

already commenced this work, and she moved on 
steadily by successive acts to its completion. New 
York very soon followed her example. There was 
at that time much less distinction than at present, 
between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. 
It was, I think, considered as an evil and a wrong, 
in which the whole country was in different degrees 
involved, and which the whole country was under 
a solemn moral obligation to remove. The subject 
was everywhere freely discussed. I have before 
me, at this moment, a speech delivered in the Con- 
vention held at Danville, Kentucky, by the Rev. 
David Rice, proving that " slavery is inconsistent 
with justice and good policy," printed in Philadel- 
phia, 1792. It is as thorough, manly, and able a 
discussion of this whole subject, as within the same 
compass I have ever seen. This was delivered in 
the Convention for forming a constitution for that 
State, and I have no reason to suppose that it gave 
any offence. This same freedom of discussion 
was enjoyed in Kentucky until quite lately. Some 
ten or fifteen years since, a motion was entertained 
in the Legislature of that State to call a conven- 
tion for the express purpose of abolishing slavery, 
and it failed of success only by the casting vote of 
the speaker. Nay, even as late as the year 1830, 
in the Convention for forming the present Consti- 
tution for Virginia, the whole subject of slavery 
was publicly discussed, with a freedom and an 
eloquence which even in that State, so fertile in 
orators, has never been excelled. 

The presentation of memorials to Congress, on 
the subject of slavery, has of late been esteemed 
an intolerable grievance. Formerly it was not so 



DR. wayland's letters. 17 

considered. On the 8th day of December, 1791, 
memorials from Societies for the abolition of sla- 
very, from the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, 
were presented and read in the House of Represent- 
atives, and were referred to a select Co?nmiitee. In 
the memorial from Connecticut it is stated, " that 
the whole system of African slavery is unjust in 
its nature, impolitic in its principles, and in its con- 
sequences ruinous to the industry and enterprise of 
the citizens of these States." The memorialists 
from Pennsylvania say, " we wish not to trespass 
on your time by referring to the different declara- 
tions made by Congress, on the unalienable right of 
all men to equal liberty ; neither would we attempt 
in this place to point out the inconsistency of ex- 
tending freedom to a part only of the human race.^' 
The memorialists from Baltimore declare that the 
objects of their association are founded in justice 
and humanity ; " that in addition to an avowed en- 
mity to slavery in every fonn, your memorialists in 
their exertions contemplate a melioration of the 
condition of that part of the human race who are 
doomed to fill the degraded rank of slaves in our 
country," &c. The strongest expression of opinion, 
however, on this subject, occurs in the memorial 
from Virginia. It commences as follows : " Your 
memorialists, fully believing that ' righteousness 
exalteth a nation,' and that slavery is not only an 
odious degradation but an outrageous violation of 
one of the most essential rights of human nature, 
and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the gospel, 
which breathes peace on earth and good-will to 
men, they lament that a practice so inconsistent 

2* 



18 DR. wayland's letters. 

with true policy, and the unalienable rights of men, 
should subsist in an enlightened age and among a 
people professing that all mankind are by nature 
equally entitled to freedom." These noble senti- 
ments, I repeat it, originated from Virginia, and 
were read and referred to a select Committee of the 
House of Representatives. 

Much has also been said on the interference of 
Associations, and other ecclesiastical bodies, on 
this subject. I do not here enter upon the question 
whether or not such assemblies should, in their 
corporate capacity, take action on the matter of 
slavery. I will merely state that such action can 
claim very ancient precedents. At the meeting of 
the Philadelphia Baptist Association, held Aug. 
7th, 1789, the following declaration was made : 
" Agreeably to a letter from the church at Balti- 
more, this Association declare their high approba- 
tion of the several societies formed in the United 
States, and Europe, for the gradual abolition of the 
slavery of Africans, and for the guarding against 
their being detained or sent off as slaves after 
having obtained their liberty, and do hereby recom- 
mend to the churches we represent to form similar 
societies, to become members thereof, and -to exert 
themselves to obtain this important object." To 
this action I know not that any exception was ever 
taken. 

These facts seem to me conclusively to show 
that during the period of our history immediately 
succeeding the Revolution, the right or wrong of 
slavery was considered throughout the Union as a 
perfectly open question, on which any one, without 
offence to any class of persons, might freely express 



DR. wayland's letters. 19 

his opinions ; on which any citizens might memo- 
rialize Congress, and in these memorials, express 
their opinions, assured that such opinions would 
meet with respectful attention ; and also that in at 
least three of the slaveholding States themselves, 
any citizen might, appealing to the understanding 
and conscience of his fellow-men, utter his senti- 
ments as freely on this as on any other subject. 

I deeply deplore the change in this respect that 
has come over the South. It seems to me unwise 
and unl-easonable. The institution of slavery, 
whether it be considered in the light of political 
economy, of philanthropy, or of Christianity, is 
surely important enough to demand a full and 
impartial discussion. If it can be defended on 
either of these grounds, " a decent respect for the 
opinions of mankind" would certainly require that 
its defence should be attempted. If it cannot be 
so defended, but on the contrary can be shown to 
be at variance both with virtue and self-interest, 
the sooner we are convinced of this the better. 
But I especially deplore the intolerance on this .^ 
subject, which I believe now to exist in the slave- 
holding States themselves. I know that there are 
at this moment many of our Southern citizens, some 
of them slaveholders, who are convinced both of 
the moral evil of slavery, and of its ruinous influ- 
ence on national prosperity. They long for an 
opportunity to express their sentiments to their 
fellow-citizens. But in the present state of public 
opinion they dare not do it. They are deprived of 
the opportunity of giving utterance to their honest 
convictions. Under such circumstances, how can 
we ever hope to arrive at the truth ? 



20 DR. WAYLATCD G LETTERS. 

To this it may be replied, that the violence and 
fanaticism of abolitionists has been the cause of 
this universal irritability of our Southern fellow, 
citizens. I have no doubt that this, to a consider- 
able degree, has been the fact. 1 admit the exist- 
ence of'the cause, and presume that it has in part 
at least produced this effect. But the question 
still remains, ought it to have produced this effect? 
Suppose that a man addresses me unkindly and 
abusively on a question of duty ; this may be a 
reason why I should not hear Mm, but it is surely 
no sufficient reason why I should not hear another 
man who addresses me on the same subject kindly 
and respectfully ; much less is it a reason why I 
should determine never to hear the subject dis- 
cussed by any person in any manner whatever. 
If abolitionists have treated this subject offensively, 
this is a no sufficient reason why any citizen of a 
Southern State should not be allowed, without of- 
fence, to declare his views of it in any suitable 
manner that he pleases. It is conceded that the 
institution of slavery is a matter peculiarly and 
exclusively belonging to the States in which it 
exists. For this reason, were there no other, the 
discussion of it should in those States be specially 
free, thorough, and universal. 

I cannot but believe that the public feeling, on 
this subject, was much more healthy with our 
fathers than with us. I cannot be persuaded that 
irritability and menace are either manly or digni- 
fied, or that the employment of physical force to 
arrest the discussion of an important subject, is 
either useful or wise. I wish most sincerely, that 
the temper and conduct of the Southern members 



DK. wayland's letters. 21 

of the late Convention at Philadelphia might be 
imitated by all their brethren. 

But I am protracting this letter to an unreason- 
able length, and will conclude by subscribing my- 
self with the highest personal esteem and Christian 
affection, 

The Author of the Moral Science. 



LETTER II. 
TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

In my last letter I took notice of some inci- 
dental topics alluded to in your letter on domestic 
slavery. My object was to show that while 
the North had erred in its manner of treating 
this subject, this error had been by no means pe- 
culiar to the North; and also that the sensi- 
tiveness in regard to it, which has of late become 
so universal at the South, had no existence in 
the early periods of the history of this country. 
It seems to me desirable that the position of both 
parties should be changed ; that the North should 
treat this subject by calm yet earnest appeal to the 
understanding and conscience of their fellow-citi- 
zens at the South, and that the South should invite 
the freest possible discussion of it, from what 
quarter soever it may proceed, so long as it con- 
fine itself within these limits. 

In your letter it is stated that " the thing affirmed 
and denied is, that slavery is a moral evil," " that 
slavery is, in itself, a sin ; a sin amid any circum- 



22 DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 

Stances." You also, with great truth and frank- 
ness, add, " if slavery be a sin, it is the immediate 
duty of masters to abolish it, whatever be the re- 
sult ; this you urge and this I grant." I believe 
that in these latter expressions you give utterance 
to the real sentiments of your heart. I believe 
that you have submitted yourself without reserve 
to the whole will of God, in so far as He shall re- 
veal it to you. I well know the flattering pros- 
pects which you abandoned in order to become a 
preacher of the gospel of Christ. I believe that 
the same principles would govern you in this case ; 
and that as soon as you shall be convinced that 
the rule of Christian duty requires of you any 
other course of conduct than that which you now 
adopt, you will, at any sacrifice whatever, act in 
accordance with your convictions. It is in this 
confidence that I address you on this subject with 
peculiar pleasure. I hope that if I am convinced 
of error, I shall be enabled to act from the same 
principles. 

It may perhaps be proper to state that I have 
never expressed my views of slavery in the form 
to which you have alluded. The assertion is am- 
biguous in its meaning, and may admit of several 
very different answers. I could not pretend either 
to affirm or deny it, in this indefinite and indeter- 
minate shape. It will be necessary therefore to 
fix its different meanings, and then ofTer my views 
upon each of them. 

You remark, it is affirmed that " slavery is a 
moral evil." This you deny ; and you assert, as I 
suppose, on the contrary, that slavery is not, in 
itself, a moral evil. 



DR. wayland's letters. 23 

You define slavery to be " an obligation to labor 
for the benefit of the master, without the contract 
or consent of the slave." I understand you, then, 
to assert, that the master has a right to oblige the 
slave to labor for his (the master's) benefit, with- 
out the contract or consent of the slave. Now if 
the master enjoy this right, he enjoys also the 
right to use all the means necessary both to en- 
force and to render it permanent. He has a right 
to protect himself against every thing that would 
interfere with the exercise of this right. If the in- 
tellectual or moral cultivation of the slave would 
interfere with the master's power to enforce this 
right, he has the right to arrest this cultivation at 
any point he chooses, or to abolish it altogether. 
If this right exist, therefore, I do not perceive that 
any exception can be taken to the sternest laws 
which have ever been enacted in any of the South- 
ern States, even though they prohibit, under the 
severest penalties, the education of negroes, and 
forbid them to assemble for the worship of God, 
except under the strictest surveillance. 

I do not really see how these two rights can 
be separated. Either the right of the master to 
oblio-e the slave to labor without his consent, confers 
the right over his intellectual and moral nature, 
or it does not. If it does, then it may be rightfully 
exercised. It is a right given me by God, over 
another, and I may use it innocently, at my own 
discretion ; that is, I may control his intellectual 
and moral nature just in so far as is necessary in 
order to secure to myself the exercise of the origi- 
nal riglit which God has given me. If, on the 
other hand, it does not exist, then the slave in 



24 DR. wayland's letters. 

these respects stands to me in precisely the same 
relation as any other man. I have no more right 
to interfere with his intellectual or moral improve- 
ment than with that of any other man. He is in 
these respects as free as I am myself; and to in- 
terfere with him is both cruel and unjust. Nay 
more, I am bound to use all the means in my 
power to elevate and improve him, just as I am 
bound to do good to all other men, as I have oppor- 
tunity. 

Or to state the matter in another form. The 
right of the master over the slave, and the right of 
the slave freely to enjoy the blessings of moral and 
intellectual cultivation, and the privileges of do- 
fnestic society, are manifestly conflicting rights. 
One or the other must overrule. If the right of 
the master be the predominant right, it innocently 
controls the other. If the right of the slave be the 
predominant right, it abolishes the right of the 
master wherever this ric^ht interferes with it. 

Were I, therefore, to define the right of slavery, 
I should go somewhat further than you have gone. 
I suppose it to be the right to oblige another to labor 
for me, without his contract or consent, with the 
additional right to use all the means necessary to 
insure the exercise of the orisfinal riixht. 

But it is asserted that " slavery is not a moral 
evil." Here I think a most important distinction 
is to be taken. The terms moral evil may be used 
to designate two ideas widely dissimilar from each 
other, and depending upon entirely different prin- 
ciples. In the one sense it means wrong, the vio- 
lation of the relations which exist between the 
parties, the transgression of a moral law of God. 



DR. wayland's letters. 25 

In the other sense it signifies the persotial guilt 
which attaches to the being who does the wrong, 
violates the obligation, or transgresses the law. 
In the first sense, moral evil depends upon the im- 
mutable relations which God has established be- 
tween his moral creatures. In the second sense, 
meaning personal guilt, it depends upon light, 
knowledge of duty, means of obtaining informa- 
tion on the subject, and may be different in differ- 
ent persons and at different times. It is manifest 
that we can take no proper view of the question 
before us, without considering these two meanings 
separately. 

It has seemed to me that much of the misunder- 
standing which has existed on this subject has 
arisen from the want of attention to this obvious 
distinction. We, at the North have considered too 
exclusively the first, and you, at the South as exclu- 
sively the second, of these meanings of the terms 
moral evil. The one party has shown that slavery 
is always a violation of right, and has inferred that 
therefore it always involves equal guilt. The other 
party has urged the circumstances in which they 
and their slaves are placed, and has aimed to show- 
that in their present condition they are not neces- 
sarily chargeable with guilt, and hence have infer- 
red that slavery is not a wrong, or the violation of 
any moral law. 

Let us endeavor calmly to consider both of these 
meanings of the phrase " moral evil.'''' 

In the first sense, when we affirm that slavery is 
not a moral evil, we affirm that to hold a man in 
slavery as it has been above explained is right, that 
it violates no lav.- of God, and is at variance with 

8 



26 DR. wayland's letters. 

no moral relation existing between man and man. 
Now I believe directly the reverse of this. I be- 
lieve it to be wrong, utterly and absolutely at va- 
riance with the relations which God has established 
between his moral and intelligent creatures. My 
reasons for holding this opinion are briefly as fol- 
lows : 

I suppose that " God, of one blood, made all 
men that dwell upon the earth," — that we are all 
partakers of the same nature, as we are all the 
children of one common parent. I suppose that 
this common nature is not affected, in any respect, 
by the color of the skin, the difference of the hair, 
or by any other variety of physical formation. I 
believe also that this common nature remains the 
same under every degree of intellectual develop- 
ment. A man may be wiser or less wise, he may 
be more or less richly endowed with mental capacity, 
he may be more or less ignorant than myself, but 
these differences affect not our common nature. He 
is in every respect, notwithstanding all this, as per- 
fectly a human being as myself; and he stands 
with me in precisely the same relations to the 
Creator and Father of us all. 

I believe that every human being is endowed 
v/ith an immortal soul, and that he is placed in the 
present state of probation, a candidate for everlast- 
ing happiness or everlasting wo. He has an in- 
tellect capable of endless progression in know- 
ledge, and is animated with a desire to improve 
that intellect to the utmost; and God has given 
him a right to improve it, to wliatever extent he 
pleases. He is endowed with a conscience which 
renders him susceptible of moral obligations both 



DR. wayland's letters. 99 

to God and to man. In virtue of this endowment, 
it is his imperative duty to seek by all the means 
in his power to know the will of God, and it is his 
inalienable right to serve God in the manner which 
he believes will be most pleasing to the Creator. 
He has powers of external action, and by means 
of his intellect he may use these powers for the 
improvement of his own condition, and, provided 
he use them not in violation of the equal rights of 
his brethren, he may employ them as he will, and 
the result of this employment is strictly and exclu- 
sively his own. 

But more than this. Every human being is a 
fallen creature. He is a sinner against God, and 
is exposed, for his transgressions, to the condemna- 
tion of everlasting death. God so loved him " that 
he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever be- 
lieveth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life." To every one possessing this nature, 
Jesus Christ has made, in the gospel, the offer of 
eternal salvation. The New Testament consti- 
tutes this message, and it is addressed to every child 
of Adam. Upon our understanding and obeying 
it, the eternal destiny of every one of us depends. 
Every human being has a perfect right to know 
every word that God has addressed to him, and as 
perfect a right to the use of all the means by which 
this knowledge may be obtained. These rights 
and obligations seem to me to arise specially and 
exclusively from the relations established by God 
between the creature and himself; and therefore 
with them no other creature of God, not even the 
angels of heaven, have a right to interfere. They 
were ordained from the beginning, ere ever 



28 DR. wayland's letters. 

*' The hills were formed, the fountains opened, 
Or the sea with all its roaring multitude of waves ;" 

and no ordinance of man can in any manner vary 
or annul them. 

I may go farther, and observe, that by the will 
of the Creator certain subordinate and temporary 
relations are established among human beings. 
Among these are the relations of husband and 
wife, and parent and child. From these relations 
certain obligations arise, and for the fulfilment of 
these obligations, God holds the parties individually 
responsible to him. With these obligations no 
other human being has a right to interfere. The 
laws which God has given respecting them in his 
word, transcend and overrule and abrogate all 
counteracting laws of man. Every man is bound 
to obey these laws which God himself has enacted, 
nor can any man rightfully present any obstacle 
to this obedience. I might pursue this subject fur- 
ther, but I have said enough to illustrate the nature 
of my belief. 

That all these ideas are involved in the concep- 
tion of a human nature, I think no one can deny. 
And if this be not denied, I do not perceive how 
the subject in this view admits of any argument. 
It is a matter of immediate moral consciousness. 
I know and feel that by virtue of my creation, I 
possess such a nature. I feel that the rights which 
I have described were conferred on me by the im- 
mediate endowment of God. I feel that with the 
exercise of these my rights, no created being can 
interfere, without doing me an aggravated wrong, 
and violating the law to which we are both sub- 
jected by our Creator. I am sure, my brother, that 



DR. wayland's letters. 29 

you feel all this as keenly as any man alive. You 
feel it, not by virtue of any constitution of govern- 
ment, or any enactment of civil law, but simply 
and truly because you are a man. And is not 
every other man, for precisely the same reason, 
endowed with the same rights, and is not the viola- 
tion of these rights as great a wrong in his case 
as in either yours or my own ? 

To present this subject in a simple light. Let 
us suppose that your family and mine were neigh- 
bors. We, our wives and children, are all human 
beings in the sense that I have described, and, in 
consequence of that common nature, and by the 
will of our common Creator, are subject to the 
law, Tliou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. Sup- 
pose that I should set fire to your house, shoot you 
as you came out of it, and seizing upon your wife 
and children, " oblige them to labor for my benefit, 
without their contract or consent." Suppose, more- 
over, aware that I could not thus oblige them, un- 
less they were inferior in intellect to myself, I 
should forbid them to read, and thus consign them 
to intellectual and moral imbecility. Suppose I 
should measure out to them the knowledge of God 
on the same principle. Suppose I should exercise 
this dominion over them and their children as long 
as I lived, and then do all in my power to render 
it certain that my children should exercise it after 
me. The question before us I suppose to be sim- ^ 
ply this, would I, in so doing, act at variance with 
the relations existing between us as creatures of 
God ? Would I, in other words, violate the su- 
preme law of my Creator, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself, or that other, Whatsoever ye 

3* 



30 DR. WAY LAN DS LETTERS. 

would that men should do unto you, do ye even so 
unto them 1 I do not see how any intelligent crea- 
ture can give more than one answer to this ques- 
tion. Then I think that every intelligent creature 
must affirm that to do this is wrong, or, in the other 
form of expression, that it is a great moral evil. 
Can we conceive of any greater ? 

Again, suppose my neighbor offers me money, 
and I, for the sake of this money, transfer some 
of these children to him, and he proceeds, as I did 
before him, to oblige them " to labor for his benefit, 
without their contract or consent;" and takes all 
the means, as before stated, which shall enable 
him to exercise this power. Does this transfer of 
money from him to me in any respect modify the 
relations which exist between him and them, as 
creatures of God, or abolish that law by which 
God has ordained that all our actions towards each 
other shall be governed? They are the same hu- 
man beings, possessing the same human nature, 
and they stand in the same relations to God and 
to each other as before. The transfer of silver 
from him to me neither makes one party more nor 
the other party less than human beings ; hence 
their actions are to be judged of by precisely the 
same rule as if no such transfer had been made. 
Hence I cannot resist the conclusion that the act 
in question is, as before, wrong ; and that slavery, 
with tliis modification, is again, as before, a " moral 
evil." 

I will offer but one more supposition. Suppose 
that any number, for instance, one half of the 
families in our neighborhood, should agree to treat 
the other half in the manner that I have described. 



DR. wayland's letters. 31 

Suppose we should by law enact that the weaker 
half should be slaves, that we would exercise over 
them the authority of masters, prohibit by law 
their instruction, and concert among ourselves the 
means for holding them permanently in their pres- 
ent situation. In what manner would this alter 
the moral aspect of the case '? 

A law, in this instance, is merely a determina- 
tion of the stronger party to hold the weaker party ' 
in bondage ; and a contract with each other, by 
which their whole power is pledged to each indi- 
vidual, so far as it shall be necessary, in order to 
enable him to hold in bondage his portion of the 
weaker party. 

Now I cannot see that this in any respect changes 
the nature of the parties. They remain, as before, 
human beings, possessing the same intellectual and 
moral nature, holding the same relations to each 
other and to God, and still under the same un- 
changeable law. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
thyself. By the act of holding a man in bondage, 
this law is violated. Wrong is done, moral evil 
is committed. In the former case it was done by 
the individual ; now it is done by the individual 
and the society. Before the formation of this 
compact, the individual was responsible only for 
his own wrong ; now he is responsible both for his 
own, and also, since he is a member of the society, 
for all the wrong which the society binds itself to 
uphold and render perpetual. 

The Scriptures frequently allude to the fact, 
that wrong done by law, that is, by society, is 
amenable to the same retribution as wrong done 
by the individual. Thus, Psalm xciv. 20-23 : 






32 DR. wayland's letters. 

" Shall tlie throne of iniquity have fellowship with 
Thee, which frcwie mischief hy a law, and gather 
themselves together against the soul of the right- 
eous, and condemn the innocent blood ? But the 
Lord is my defence ; and my God is the rock of 
my refuge. And he shall bring upon them their 
own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own 
wickedness ', yea, the Lord our God shall cut 
them off." So also Isaiah x. 1-4 : " Wo unto 
them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that 
write grievousness which they have j^^escribed ; to 
turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take 
away the right from the poor of my people, that 
widows may be their prey, and that they may rob 
the fatherless ! And what will ye do in the day 
of visitation, and in the desolation which shall 
come from far ? to whom will ye flee for help ? 
and where will ye leave your glory ? Without 
me they sliall bow down under the prisoners, and 
they shall fall under the slain. For all this his 
anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched 
out still." Besides, persecution for the sake of 
religious opinion is always perpetrated by law ; 
but this in no manner affects its moral character. 
There is, however, one point of difference, which 
arises from the fact that this wrong has been estab- 
lished by law. It becomes a social wrong. The 
individual, or those who preceded him, may have 
surrendered their individual right over it to the soci- 
ety. In this case it may happen that the individual 
<Jannot act as he might have acted if the law had 
not been made. In this case the evil can only be 
eradicated by changing the opinions of the society, 
and thus persuading them to abolish the law. It 



DR. wayland's letters. 33 

will however be apparent that this, as I said be- 
fore, does not cHange the relation of the parties 
either to each other or to God. The wrong exists 
as before. The individual act is wrong. The 
law which protects it is wrong. The whole soci- 
ety, in putting the law into execution, is doing 
wrong. Before, only the individual, now, the 
whole society becomes the wrong-doer, and for 
that wrong both the individual and the society are 
held responsible in the sight of God. 

I have thus endeavored as clearly as possible to 
illustrate my views upon the question — is slavery a 
moral evil ? understanding by these terms, wrong, 
or violation of moral law. The consideration of 
the second meaning of the phrase I must reserve 
for another occasion. 

It may, perhaps, be proper for me here to state, 
once for all, that in these remarks and those that 
may follow, I speak as the organ of no party and of 
no sect. I belong to none. I am not and I never 
have been connected with any abolition society, 
and I believe that I have read as much on one 
side of this question as on the other. I write what 
seem to me the simple dictates of my individual 
understanding and conscience, enlightened I hope 
by the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Nay, I. 
may claim that the doctrines which I have ad- 
vanced are by necessity involved in the character 
which I hold as an American citizen. I do not 
know that I have uttered a single sentiment which 
is not comprehended in the notable words which 
form the introduction to our Declaration of Inde- 
pendence : " We hold these truths to be self-evi- 
dent,'' (that is, so evident that they are, from the 



34 DR. wayland's letters. 

principles of the human mind, admitted as soon as 
they are stated,) " that all men are created equal,'^ 
(that is, equal in right to use the endowments of 
the Creator as they choose, though not equal in 
endowments,) " that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain inaUenahle rights," (that is, 
rights from which they cannot be rightfully alien- 
ated,) " and that among these are life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness." I do not know how ^Ise 
in so ^ew words I could express my opinions on 
this subject. 

I am, my dear brother, yours with every senti- 
ment of regard, 

The Author of the Moral Science. 



LETTER III. 

TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

In my last letter, I endeavored to show that the 
right of slavery, if it exists, is not only the right 
" to oblige another to labor for our benefit, without 
his contract or consent," but also the right to use 1 
all the means necessary for the establishment and 
perpetuity of this right. Wherever slavery is 
established by law, I believe this power is con- 
ferred by society upon the master, and therefore it 
would be absurd to suppose that it is not generally 
exercised. I also attempted to show that when we 



DR. wayland's letters. 35 

assert or deny that slavery is a moral evil, the 
terms " moral evil," are susceptible of two very dis- 
similar meanings. They may mean either wrong, 
violation of right, transgression of moral law ; or 
they may mean the guilt that ftttaches to the person 
doing the wrong. I endeavored also to show that, 
taken in the first of these senses, slavery is, from 
the very nature of the case, essentially a moral 
evil — that it is a violation of the rights of man, and 
a transgression of that law under which all human 
beings are created, " Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bor as thyself;" and that the moral character of 
t|;ie relation is the same, whether the master be the 
captor or the purchaser of the slave ; whether his 
power be upheld by his own individual prowess, 
or by the combined authority of society. 

I proceed now to consider the second meaning 
of the assertion — slavery is or is not a moral evil. 
We now mean by this assertion, that whoever holds 
a fellow-man in bondage is guilty of sin. To this 
assertion let us now direct our attention. 

Supposing a moral law to exist, our guilt in 
violating it, as well as our virtue in obeying it, 
depends in the first place upon our knowledge of 
its existence. If we have never known that such 
a law has been enacted, we may be free from 
guilt though we violate it. If, on the other hand, 
we know of its existence, and, with adequate 
knowledge of our^duty, violate it, we incur, with- 
out mitigation, the guilt of our transgression. 

Again, the guilt of violating a moral law must 
depend not only upon our knowledge, but upon 
our opportunities for the acquisition of knowledge. 
Two men may both violate a law in ignorance, 



V^ 



36 DR. 

but the one may have had every opportunity for 
acquiring a complete knowledge of his duty ; the 
other may have been deprived of all such oppor- 
tunities whatever. Their guilt will, in these cases, 
be very dissimilar. He who refuses to be in- 
formed concerning his duty, is voluntarily igno- 
rant. His ignorance is his own fault, and he is 
iustly responsible for all the consequences of his 
own act. The maxim in law clearly applies to 
this case — " No man may take advantage of his 
own wrong;" in other words, no man may plead 
io-norance as an excuse, when ie;norance rather 
than knowledge is his own deliberate choice. 

I am prepared to go further than this. Know- 
ledge of my duty may be offered to me, but offered 
so commingred with error, and in a manner so 
repulsive to all my feelings of self-respect, that I 
instinctively reject it. In this case the guilt of 
rejecting knowledge of my duty is obviously less 
than it would have been if the same truth, un- 
mixed with error, and clothed in the charity of the 
gospel, had been presented to my understanding. 
For instance, I am an instructor. In the discharge 
of my duties I may unwittingly adopt unsound 
principles. Suppose a stranger wishes to correct 
my errors, and introduces himself by stating as 
fLicts what I know to be exaggerations, and by 
loading mc with gross and offensive personal abuse. 
I know that I ought to bear it calmly, and, care- 
fully discriminating between the good and the bad, 
to use both as a means of self-improvement. I 
fear, however, that I should be, at the best, pre- 
judiced against such instructions, and that some 
time would elapse before this discrimination could 



DR. wayland's letters. 37 

take place. I grant that I should do wrong in al- 
lowing my judgment to be biased by this abuse. 
But it is certainly as true that he did wrong in 
abusing me. It is his abuse that has rendered me 
unwilling to be convinced, when I might have been 
convinced on the instant, if he had treated me with 
Christian courtesy. My ignorance is therefore the 
combined result of his unchristian want of kindness 
and my unchristian want of meekness. The respon- 
sibility clearly attaches to both of us. Which of us 
will bear the larger portion of it, can only be known 
when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed. 

I see not why these principles do not apply to 
the present case. And hence, among those who, 
as I believe, in violation of right, hold human 
beings in bondage, there may be found every pos- 
sible gradation of guiltiness. There may be many 
persons in our Southern states who have been 
reared in the midst of slavery, who have uniformly 
treated their slaves humanely ; and who, having 
always seen the subject discussed in such a man- 
ner that they have been instinctively repelled from 
it, have never yet deliberately investigated it as a 
question of duty. Slaves have been held by those 
whom the slaveholders most venerate among the 
dead, and by those whom they most respect among 
the living. It is surprising to observe how long 
even a good man, under such circumstances, may 
continue in the practice of wrong, without ever 
suspecting its moral character. Of this fact the 
temperance reformation has furnished a thousand 
remarkable instances. It is only a few years 
since many of our most estimable citizens were 
acquiring their wealth by the manufacture and 

4 



38 DR. wayland's lettees. 

sale of spirituous liquors; that is, by means of the 
wholesale destruction, both temporal and eternal, 
of their fellow-men. Yet, strange as it may now 
seem, it never occurred to them that they were 
doing wrong. I remember very well that when 
this subject was first agitated in New England, I 
made it the theme of two fast-day discourses. In 
the course of the following week, a member of my 
church, one of the most conscientious men I have 
ever known, a wholesale grocer, said to me, " If 
your doctrine be true, I do not see how I can con- 
tinue to deal in spirituous liquors." I believe that 
the thought had never crossed his mind before. 
He examined the subject carefully, became fully 
convinced of his duty, and abandoned the traffic. 
Yet he had attained to more than middle life, and 
had been from youth a man of exemplary piety, 
without having been aware that he was doing 
wrong. The lorong was ever the same. Guilt 
commenced as soon as he was convinced of the 
wrong, and continued in the practice of it. 

Now all this absence of consideration may exist 
among many persons at the South, on the subject 
of slavery. It has, under almost as peculiar cir- 
cumstances, existed at the North. I have been 
told that the Rev. Dr. Stiles, afterwards President 
of Yale College, during his residence in Newport, 
R. I., being in want of a domestic, sent by the 
captain of a slave-ship a barrel of rum to the coast 
of Africa, to be exchanged for a slave. The ven- 
ture was successful, and in due time a negro boy 
was brought back. It chanced that some time 
afterwards, in passing through his kitchen, he ol 
served the boy in tears. He asked him the reason 



DR. wayland's letters. 39 

of his sorrow, and the poor fellow answered that 
he was thinking of his parents, and brothers and 
sisters, whom he should never see again. In an 
instant, the whole truth flashed upon the master's 
mind, and he saw the evil he had done. He could 
not return the boy to Africa, but he made every 
reparation in his power. He provided for him 
every means of improvement, was the means of his 
conversion, and treated him ever afterwards not as 
a servant, but as a brother beloved. Newport, for 
that was his name, survived Dr. Stiles several 
years, and was, to the end of his life, supported by 
a legacy which his former master had left him. 

Such cases as these may exist now in the South- 
ern states. On the other hand, it is no violation 
of charity to suppose that there are others who, 
utterly regardless of justice, knowing what they 
do to be wrong, and intentionally steeled against 
every monition of conscience, deliberately sacri- 
fice every right of their slaves to their own pecu- 
niary advantage, or the gratification of their love 
of power ; who decide the question in how many 
years they shall work their fellow-men to death, 
by a calculation of profit and loss, and who exult 
in the power of subjecting to their uncontrolled 
will — a will avaricious, lustful, tyrannical and cruel 
— as many human beings as by purchase they can 
appropriate to themselves. 

Let us now take these two extremes. These 
men are both slaveholders. They both do a wrong 
act in holdin": a fellow-man in bondao-e. But 
would any one confound the moral character of 
the one with that of the other ? The one may be 
a brother beloved, desirous from his heart of doing 



40 DR. wayland's letters. 

the will of God, so far as it shall be revealed to 
him. The other is a monster in iniquity — since 
the slave-trade exists I will not say without a par- 
allel — but surely without many superiors in wick- 
edness. And who does not see that the interval 
between these extremes may be filled up with 
every gradation of guiltiness? 

And hence it is that I perceive, in reflecting on 
this subject, wide ground for the exercise of Chris- 
tian charity. With a deep conviction of the uni- 
versal wrong of the act, I have very dissimilar 
views of the guilt of the actors. Some of them, 
with pain, I believe to be unjust, tyrannical, and 
cruel — in the face of knowledge, acting in utter 
disregard of the dearest rights of their fellow-men. 
Others, I rejoice to believe, uphold this institution, 
in the belief that it is innocent, and exercise the 
power which they suppose themselves rightfully 
to possess with exemplary kindness, with paternal 
tenderness, and with a religious care for the souls 
that are, as they believe, committed to their charge. 
I cannot include these two classes in the same 
sweeping sentence of condemnation. In the one, 
though I see and lament their errors, I perceive 
the lineaments of the Christian character, in many 
cases strongly and beautifully expressed. Such 
men, while I testify against what seem to me their 
errors, I must receive as brethren, and I delight 
to co-operate with them in every good work, pro- 
vided I so do it as not to imply any participation 
with what I believe to be wrong. Towards the 
others, I entertain the same sentiments which I 
entertain towards any other wicked and injurious 
men. I believe them to be not only doing wrong, 



DR. wayland's letters. 41 

but to be also exceedingly guilty — excluded by 
their guilt from all hope of salvation, unless they 
repent of this sin. 

Hence I can never approve of those appeals 
which treat all men at the South as though they 
were, in respect to slavery, under the same con- 
demnation ; and which apply to all indiscrimi- 
nately epithets which certainly belong to no more 
than a part. Hence I consider much of the action of 
churches and associations at the North, to be false 
in principle and unchristian in practice. It affirms 
guilt of the action, instead of affirming it of the 
mind of the actor ; hence it makes the act, at all 
times and under all circumstances, of the same 
guiltiness ; and it uniformly attaches to an action 
the worst motives, instead of ascribing to it as good 
motives as the circumstances attending upon it will 
allow. 

I should also add, that the degree of guilt at- 
tendant upon a wrong action, must be continually 
changing with the progress of light and knowledge. 
Every one sees that Dr. Stiles, in the case above 
alluded to, could not, at the present time, send a 
barrel of rum to Africa in exchange for a human 
being, without being a very wicked man. Sixty 
or seventy years since he did it, and he was a very 
good man. It is much more difficult for a man at 
the present time to hold his fellow-men in bondage, 
and be guiltless, through ignorance, than it was 
twenty years since. The whole civilized world 
has been agitated upon this question. Great Bri- 
tain, from a conviction of moral obligation, has 
liberated her slaves at an expenditure of a hundred 
millions of dollars. The subject is producing 

4* 



y 



43 DR. wayland's letters. 

fearful excitement throughout our whole country, 
and threatens us with evils which I dare scarcely 
contemplate, and to which, in your letter, you have 
so eloquently alluded. Under these circumstances, 
it surely becomes every man who holds men in 
bondage, to inquire whether he can be innocent in 
the sight of " the Judge of the whole earth." If Jef- 
ferson "trembled for his country when he remem- 
bered that God is just," and declared that " in case 
of insurrection the Almighty has no attribute that 
can take part with us in such a contest," surely it 
becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ to pause and 
reflect. And besides, although this subject has 
been pressed offensively, and has naturally pro- 
duced irritation, it should be borne in mind that 
anger in the bosom of a wise man is always short- 
lived. It is time for us to abstract the truth from 
the circumstances that surround it, and endeavor 
to ascertain our duty, each one for himself. 

I will refer to one other condition, by which the 
personal guilt of holding men in bondage may be 
modified ; it is the law of the community in which 
we live. I have already shown that such laws can 
never affect the right or icrang of an action. They 
may, however, affect the guilt or innocence of the 
actor. For instance, the law of the state may for- 
bid me to manumit a slave without giving to the 
public, securities for his maintenance through life, 
and I may be unable to give such securities. It 
may forbid me to manumit my slaves without re- 
moving them out of the State, and they may them- 
selves be unwilling to be removed, and may be 
unable, young and old together, to support them- 
selves by labor in another climate. Or, the laws 



DR. wayland's letters. , 43 

may be of such a nature that I can only manumit 
them under circumstances which would render 
their return to relentless bondage almost inevitable. 
I do not pretend to specify all the cases that may 
arise of this nature. In such circumstances as 
these, I can easily conceive of a course of action 
which might be innocent, even though the relation 
of master and slave existed. The master might 
become convinced of the wrong of slavery, and 
feel that he had no right over these human beings. 
The law, however, will not allow him to liberate 
them on any conditions with which it is in his 
power to comply. What then can he do ? I an- 
swer, he may, from the moment that he is thus 
convinced, hold them not for Tiis benefit but for 
theirs. If they, in their present condition, are un- 
able to support themselves in other States, he may 
change that condition by teaching them habits of 
self-reliance and profitable industry. He may 
cultivate their intellects and improve their morals ; 
and having done this, he may emancipate them 
just as rapidly as divine Providence shall present 
the opportunity. He who acts thus, or in any 
other wa^/-, in the fear of God, acts upon the prin- 
ciple that he holds this relation for the good of the 
slave, honestly and earnestly laboring, at any 
personal sacrifice, to terminate it as soon as he is 
able, seems to me innocent of the guilt of slavery. 
Now I doubt not that there are many just such 
men among our brethren at the South. I have 
known Christian slaveholders who have devoted 
themselves through life to the welfare, temporal and 
spiritual, of their slaves, with the spirit of the most 
self-denying missionaries ; and who, I confidently 



44 

believe, if they could do it with a reasonable pros- 
pect of improving the condition of their slaves, 
would gladly manumit them and support them- 
selves by daily labor at the North. Such men 
and women do honor to human nature. They are 
the true friends of their race. I am pained at the 
circumstances in which they are placed ; but 
being so placed, I know not how they could act 
more worthily. 

This is one extreme. Here, as in the previous 
case, there is another extreme. No one will deny 
that there are slaveholders of a very different 
character from these to whom I have now alluded. 
There are men who love the very law which gives 
them the power over their fellow-men ; who daily 
strive to render that law more stringent ; who, 
without regard either to the rights of man or the 
law of God, use the power which the law has given 
them over the slave, to the uttermost ; and who 
resist by menace and outcry every modification 
of the law by which those who think differently 
from them shall be enabled to act towards their 
slaves as their consciences shall dictate. 

Here then we have men who are slaTeholders 
equally in form, but of the most dissimilar moral 
character. The one class may be honestly and 
prayerfully laboring, to the best of their ability, to 
obey the Christian precept, " As ye would that 
men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them." 
The other class allow no law, human or divine, to 
interfere with the exercise of their oppressive and 
tyrannical will. And between these extremes, as 
I said before, how many gradations of guiltiness 
may intervene ! 



DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 45 

Here then, again, is there room for the exercise 
of charity. I am not so simple as to believe, be- 
cause there are some slaveholders of the first class, 
that all slaveholders are such ; nor do I hold that 
the existence of slavery under some circumstances 
without moral guilt, proves that slavery under 
other circumstances is innocent; or that by the 
innocency of the one, the guilt of the other is in 
the smallest degree diminished. I do, however, 
believe, that we should look at the facts as they 
are, and instead of dealing in wholesale denuncia- 
tion, until we can find a better rule, treat that 
man as a Christian in whom we can recognise the 
spirit of Christ. 

While, however, I thus state the grounds of 
Christian charity, I hope that no one will suppose 
for a moment that I mean to extenuate the moral 
wrong of slavery. Should a man enslave me or 
my family, I should consider it the greatest wrong 
that he could inflict upon us. It is just as great a 
wrong to enslave any other family as to enslave 
mine. Nor would the wrong rendered be less, 
but in fact greater, were he so to stupify and de- 
base us, that we were willing to submit our whole 
nature, physical, intellectual, and moral, to the 
will of a master. Still, were this done to me, I can 
conceive that the guilt of the oppressor might be 
and would be materially affected by his knowledge, 
his means of information, and the laws of the so- 
ciety to which he was obliged for the present to 
submit. 

I remark again, that these modifications of the 
guilt of slavery can avail only where they exist. 
A man who knowingly, or with the power of 



46 DR. wayland's letters. 

knowing, voluntarily docs wrong, is guilty for the 
full amount of that wrong ; and, at the bar of 
God, he must answer for it. The only plea in 
abatement of guilt is, that a man has not the means 
of knowing better ; or, that it is physically out of 
his power to obey the precept. But, while this 
abatement may be pleaded when it actually exists, 
it furnishes ground for no plea of abatement be- 
yond the precise limits of its existence. If there- 
fore a man allow that slavery is a violation of 
right — a violation of the law, '' Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself" — before he can plead 
that he is guiltless, he must show that he has done, 
and is doing, every thing in his power to discon- 
tinue and make reparation for the wrong. 

Once more. In what I have said above, I have 
alluded to the course which a slaveholder might be 
supposed to pursue, and be innocent of the guilt 
of slavery. I have, however, in these remarks, 
referred only to his conduct as an individual. 
There remains yet to be considered his duty as a 
member of society. If the laws are wrong, he, as 
a member of society, is bound to exert his full con- 
stitutional power to effect their abolition. If the 
moral sentiment of the State is wicked, he is bound 
to labor with his whole power to correct it. If his 
fellow-citizens oppress him, he is called upon by 
every sentiment of manliness, constitutionally to 
resist this oppression. If they oppress his fellow- 
men, he is bound by every sentiment of philan- 
thropy to defend the oppressed and raise up the 
down-trodden. Unless he do this, he cannot, as a 
member of the society, be free from the guilt of 
the wrong which the society perpetrates. There 



DR. wayland's letters. 47 

is, however, no opportunity in this letter to discuss 
this part of the subject. It may present itself 
again, at a later period of our inquiry. 

In the above remarks I have endeavored to il- 
lustrate the principles by which the personal guilt 
of holding a man in bondage may be modified. 
In what degree they apply to the case of every 
separate individual, can be known only to the 
Searcher of hearts!! You and I, however, my 
brother, believe in the moral corruption of the hu- 
man soul. We have been taught by the Bible 
that men are by nature influenced by direful pas- 
sions and unholy lusts ; by an insane love of 
wealth and a reckless desire for power. We 
know, too, how universally these corrupt affections 
darken the understanding and stupify the con- 
science. Taking these truths into view, we may 
form some estimate of the proportion of cases in 
which, on the above principles, the holding of 
slaves does or does not involve guiltiness ; in 
how far insensibility to duty results from a want 
of knowledge, and in how far it results from a 
selfish and sinful indisposition to know the truth. 
You, who are well acquainted with slavery in all 
its phases, can form, I presume, a more correct 
judgment in this matter than myself. Of one 
thing, however, there can be no doubt. So far as 
slavery is a wrong perpetrated by society, no 
modification of guilt can arise from the want of 
power to remedy it. The power resides in the 
society. Its members have placed themselves in 
their present position in regard to slavery. They 
can, whenever they please, change that position. 
And for not changing it, every member of the so- 



48 DR. wayland's letters. 

ciety who has not exerted his full constitutional 
power to remove it, must at the bar of God be held 
guilty. 

I am, my dear brother, yours with every senti- 
ment of Christian affection — 

The Author of the Moral Science. 



LETTER IV. 
TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

In my last two letters I have attempted to show > 
what I mean when I assert that slavery is a moral 
evil. I have wished to make it clear that slavery, 
or the holding of men in bondage, and " obliging 
them to labor for our benefit, without their con- 
tract or consent," is always and everywhere, or, 
as you well express it, semper et uhique, a moral 
wrong, a violation of the obligations under which 
we are created to our fellow-men, and a transgres- 
sion of the law of our Creator, Thou shall, love thy 
neighbor as thyself; that, however, while this is 
true, it is also true that the guilt of any individual 
doing this wrong may be modified by his means 
of obtaining a knowledge of his duty, and also by 
the laws of the community of which he may chance 
to be a member. 

The objection to this view of the subject is 
founded on the precept and example of the Old 



DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 49 

and New Testaments. With pleasure I proceed 
to consider the argument on this part of the ques- 
tion. Believing as we both do that the Bible is a 
perfect rule of duty, if we can ascertain what it 
teaches, we may reasonably hope that our opinions 
may yet coincide. In this letter I propose to ex- 
amine the argument derived from the Old Testa- 
ment alone. 

Your view, I think, may be briefly expressed as 
follows : Slavery was sanctioned in the Old Testa- 
ment ; and, since the Old Testament is a revela-v 
tion from God, and since He would not sanction 
any thing morally evil, therefore slavery is not a 
moral evil. 

Before, however, I proceed to consider this argu- 
ment, permit me to remark, that I do not perceive 
in the views which I have expressed any thing at 
variance with the teachings of the Old Testament. 
I will briefly explain my opinions on the subject : 

I grant, at once, that the Hebrews held slaves 
from the time of the conquest of Canaan, and that 
Abraham and the patriarchs had held them many 
centuries before. I grant also that Moses enacted 
laws with special reference to that relation. Of 
the nature of these laws it may be convenient to 
speak shortly. I wonder that any one should have 
had the hardihood to deny so plain a matter of 
record. I should almost as soon deny the delivery 
of the ten commandments to Moses. 

Granting all this, I do not see that it contradicts 
aught that I have said. I believe slavery then, as 
now, to have been wrong, a violation of our obli- 
gations to man, and at variance with the moral 
laws of God. But I believe that God did not see 

5 



50 DR. wayland's letters. 

fit to reveal his will on this siiliject, nor indeed on 
many others, to the ancient Hebrews. He made 
known to them just as much of his moral law as 
he chose, and the law on this subject belonged to 
the part which he did not choose to make known. 
Hence, although they did what was in itself z/^ro??^, 
yet, God not having made known to them his will, 
they were not guilly. 

But more than this. God saw fit to institute 
peculiar relations between the Hebrews and the 
inhabitants of Canaan, relations such as he has 
never instituted between any other portions of the 
human family. When the iniquity of the Canaan- 
ites was full, God gave them and their lands and 
possessions, by special revelation, to the Hebrews. 
The Hebrews were authorized hy a divine commis- 
sion to invade their territory, to take possession of 
their houses and fields, and slay without mercy the 
inhabitants. The limitation and extent of this 
grant were definitely marked out. They were, 
however, directed to pause before the work of de- 
struction was fully completed, lest the land, being 
deserted of its inhabitants, should be overrun by 
beasts of prey. Still, the people within these limits 
remained under the primitive curse. The He- 
brews were authorized to destroy them, and seize 
upon their land whenever they needed it. The 
authority to take them as slaves seems to me to be 
a part of this original, peculiar, and I may per- 
haps say anomalous grant. 

But this grant was made to one people, and to 
one people only, Ihe HeOreics. It had respect to one 
people only, the Canaanites. It can be of force at 
no other time, and to no other people. If the Jews 



DR. wayland's letters. 51 

were now to return to Palestine, tlie Old Testa- 
ment would furnish no warrant by which they 
would be authorized, were it in their power, to 
devote to destruction or to enslave the Druses or 
Maronites of Mount Lebanon, the Arabs of Da- 
mascus, or the Turks of Acre. Much less would 
it authorize American citizens, residing in Pales- 
tine, to destroy or to enslave them ; and much less 
does it authorize American citizens here at home 
to destroy, or to enslave, or to hold in slavery, the 
people of another continent. To the Jews it would 
have been unlawful, except by the special direc- 
tion of Jehovah. To us and to all men it is un- 
lawful to do the same thing, unless we can show 
the same special direction. These seem to me to 
be the general principles which we always apply 
when reasonino^ concerninar the revelation made 
by the Most High to the Hebrew commonwealth. 
They comprehend the case of slavery ; and by 
them is the bearing upon us of the permission 
in question to be determined. 

The view which you take of the case, however, 
differs materially from this. I will now proceed 
to examine it. It may be stated briefly thus : 
Slavery was sanctioned by revelation among the 
Hebrews ; it is therefore sanctioned to us. 

Let us reduce this argument to a syllogism, and 
it will be expressed thus : 

1. Whatever God sanctioned amono- the He- 
brews, he sanctions for all men and at all times. 

2. God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews. 
Therefore, 

3. God sanctions slavery for all men and at all 
times. 



52 DR. wayland's letters. 

I believe that in these words I express the argu- 
ment correctly. If I do not, it is solely because I 
do not know how to state it more exactly. 

Let us, then, in the first place, examine the 
major premise. ^^ Whatever God sanctioned among 
the Hebrews, he sanctions for all men and at all 
times.'' 

Now this proposition surely is not self-evident. 
If it be true, it must be provable either by reason, 
or by revelation. Can it be proved by reason ? 
The only argument by which it could be supported 
is, I think, the following : 

1. Whatever God sanctions to any men at any 
time he sanctions to all men at all times. 

2. The Hebrews are men. Therefore, 

3. Whatever he sanctioned to the Hebrews at 
any time he sanctioned to all men at all times. 

Now I think that the major premise of this syl- 
logism is wholly untenable. It appears to me to 
be diametrically at variance with the whole theory 
of the divine dispensation. Every one, I think, 
knows that God has seen fit to enlighten our race 
progressively ; and that he has enlightened differ- 
ent portions in different degrees. He has first given 
us the light of nature. Millions at the present day 
have no other light. We know from revelation 
that by the truth alone which this light reveals, 
will they be judged. They will therefore be held 
guilty for the transgression of no other laws than 
those which this light has discovered to them. 
The rest of their transirressions of moral law will 
not be laid to their account. Thus i;i this sense 
of the word, these transgressions are sanctioned to 
them ; that is, they are not forbidden, and they are 



DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 58 

not reckoned against them as sin. But I ask, are 
they sanctioned to us? Could- we who have the 
light of the gospel go back to the morality of Soc- 
rates, Plato, Aristotle, or Confucius, for the reason 
that what the light of nature allowed to them is 
allowable in us ? Yet I see not but this proposition 
would lead us to precisely this conclusion. 

The same principle applies to the other gradual 
revelations of moral light which God has at differ- 
ent periods made to mankind. He increased the 
light of the patriarchs by the direct communication 
of a small part of his will. A large part of that 
will, however, he saw fit still to withhold. The 
violations of this latter part he did not forbid, but 
on the contrary he allowed them to remain uncheck- 
ed, that is, in this sense he sanctioned them. But 
could any of us, in the fear of God, go back to the 
patriarchal dispensation, and take for our moral 
rule the revelation, and only the revelation, made 
to the patriarchs ? 

So of the Mosaic dispensation. By this revela- 
tion the light was more fully discovered, but still 
much of it was withheld. We cannot plead in 
this case, more than in the other, that what was 
permitted without rebuke in a darker age is per- 
mitted to us to whom greater light has been given. 
I suppose, therefore, that directly the reverse of 
the proposition in question is true ; that God reveals 
his will in different degrees, at different times, and 
to difTerent people at the same time ; that he holds 
men accountable for precisely as much light as he 
has given them ; that he allows without rebuke 
those actions on the moral character of which that 
light has not shined, and, in this sense, he sanctions 

5* 



54 ' DR. wayland's letters. 

them ; but that this allowance can never be plead- 
ed in behalf of those who enjoy a more perfect 
revelation, that is, on whom a better light has 
shined. 

But suppose we take the strongest meaning of 
the word sanction, — that of approve or command — 
the proposition will not be, I think, more tenable, 
as 1 have before said. God commanded the He- 
brews to destroy the Canaanites. He commanded 
Saul to destroy the Amalekites. But were these 
commands given to all men and at all times 1 It 
is therefore, I think, manifest, that this proposition, 
on which the argument from reason must rest, is, 
in every sense of the word sanction, without foun- 
dation. 

I hope, my dear brother, you will excuse this 
use of formal syllogisms in a familiar letter. It is 
not done for the sake of formality, or with the 
design of appearing precise and logical. I have 
adopted this mode of discussion simply because I 
' have thought that thus I could present the points 
at issue with greater distinctness than seemed pos- 
sible in any other. 

But can the proposition, " whatever was sanc- 
tioned to the Hebrews is sanctioned to all men at 
all times," be proved from revelation 1 It seems 
to me that precisely the reverse is the fact. To 
arrive at the truth in this case it is only necessary 
to inquire whether there were any acts sanctioned 
to the Hebrews by Moses which are not sanctioned 
to all men. 

Take for instance the whole Mosaic code of 
civil law, its severe enactments, its very frequent 
capital punishments, its cities of refuge, its tenure 



DR. wayland's letters. 55 

of real estate. Could any legislator at the present 
day enact similar laws, and justly plead as a suf- 
ficient reason that God had sanctioned, nay enacted, 
such laws for the Jews ? Would this he a suffi- 
cient reason for abolishing the trial by jury in a 
case of accidental homicide, (as for instance when 
the head of an axe slipped from the helve and 
wounded a man to death,) and enacting that the 
next akin might slay an innocent person if he over- 
took him before he arrived at a city of refuge ? I 
think every one must immediately perceive that 
this law was a humane limitation to the spirit of 
Oriental vindictiveness, but that it would be very 
wrong to put it in practice at the present day. 

But we are not left to our own reasonings on this 
subject. We know full well that polygamy and 
divorce are wrong, that they violate the obligations 
established by God between the sexes, and are 
transgressions of his positive law. On this subject 
I presume we can have no difference of opinion. 
Yet these sins were not forbidden by Moses. Nay 
more, laws were enacted by the Hebrew legislator 
in respect to both of these practices. When a man 
was already united to one wife, and chose to take 
another, the manner in which the first wife was to 
be put away was prescribed. The right of the 
first-born was also in such a case defined. When, 
again, a Hebrew wished to divorce a wife, the 
manner in which this should be done was a matter 
of positive enactment. The discussion of our Sa- 
viour with the Jews on this subject is given us in 
Matt. xix. 3-9. I will quote the whole passage. 
'• The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting 
him, and saying unto him^ Is it lawful for a man 



56 DK. wayland's letters. 

to put away liis wife for every cause ? And he 
answered and said unto them, Have ye not read 
that at the beginning, when the Creator made man, 
he formed a male and a female, and said. For this 
cause a man shall leave father and mother and 
adhere to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 
Wherefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. 
What therefore God hath conjoined, let not man 
separate. They replied, Why then did Moses 
command to give her a writing of divorcement and 
dismiss her? He answered, Moses indeed, because 
of your nntractahle disjiosiiion, pcrvu'Ucd you to 
divorce your wives, but it was not so from the be- 
ginning. Therefore I say unto you, whosoever di- 
vorceth his wife except for whoredom, and marrieth 
another, committeth adultery," &c. You perceive 
I have used the translation of Dr. Campbell, who 
seems to have understood the scope of the argument 
better than the authors of our version. 

Now concerning this decision of our Lord, 
several things arc to be remarked : 

1. Our Lord authoritatively lays down the law 
of marriage, defining it to be an exclusive engage- 
ment between two parties for life. 

2. He not only does this, but he declares that 
this doctrine was taught from the creation, quo- 
ting Genesis ii. 24, in confirmation of his as- 
sertion. 

3. Notwithstanding this, Moses had sanctioned 
divorce ; that is, he had not forbidden it, and had 
enacted laws for the regulation of it. 

4. And moreover, the reason of this is given ; 
it was because of the hardness of their hearts, or 
their untractable disposition. 



DR. wayland's letters. 57 

Here then is an institution sanctioned ; that is, 
permitted and made a subject of legislation, which 
is wrong in itself, and therefore forbidden by our 
Saviour to them and to all men. Nay, it had been 
thus sanctioned, although a prior revelation had 
discountenanced it. It is therefore clear, that a 
practice may have been sanctioned to the Hebrews, 
which is not sanctioned to all men at all times ; 
nay, which before and after a particular period 
was not sanctioned even to the Hebrews themselves. 
I think, therefore, that the teaching of the Scrip- 
tures is diametrically at variance with the proposi- 
tion on which the whole argument from the Old 
Testament is founded. 

I will, in passing, add a single remark respect- 
ing the manner in which the inspired legislator of 
the Hebrews has dealt with this subject. Poly- 
gamy and divorce at this time were universally 
practised among the Jews, and indeed among all 
other Oriental nations. Moses did not at once 
directly forbid these wrongs. He only permitted 
them and modified some of their worst features. 
He, however, did not leave the subject here. He 
inculcated such principles as would, by appealing 
to their reason and conscience, gradually abolish 
these abuses. And the result took place as he had 
intended. Hence we observe that the prophets 
rebuked their countrymen for the practice of these 
very wrongs, — wrongs permitted, or (in the manner 
which we have explained) sanctioned by Moses, 
and they denounced the wrath of God in conse- 
quence of them. A most touching expostulation 
on this subject is found in Malachi ii. 13-16. 
" And this have ye done again, covering the altar 



58 DR. wayland's letters. 

of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with 
crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the 
offering any more, or receiveth it with good-will at 
your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore ? Because 
the Lord hath been witness between thee and the 
wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt 
treacherously : yet is she thy companion, and the 
wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? 
Yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And where- 
fore one ? That he might seek a godly seed. 
Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none 
deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 
For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith, that lie 
hateth 'putting aiuay : for one covereth violence 
with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts : there- 
fore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not 
treacherously." It was in consequence of these 
very fundamental truths inculcated by Moses, 
truths diametrically opposed to polygamy and di- 
vorce, that these evils had to a great degree ceased, 
as you have remarked, at the time of the coming 
of Christ. 

But to return. Suppose this proposition, that 
whatever was sanctioned to the Hebrews is sanc- 
tioned to all men at all times, be granted, I do not 
see in what manner it could justify slavery in the 
United States. It is, I presume, conceded, that a 
permission of this kind is to be understood accord- 
ing to the utmost strictness of application. If 
slavery be justified by the law of Moses, it is, of 
course, only justified in the manner and with the 
restrictions under which it was placed by that law. 
Let us look at some of the provisions respecting 
it, which Moses established. 



DH. wayland's letters. 59 

1. A distinction was made between their breth- 
ren and the Canaanites. The former could be 
held in slavery only for six years, but strangers 
might be held for life. 

2. The slaves of the strano;er were circumcised 
and admitted to the ordinary privileges of the He- 
brew church and commonwealth. 

3. If a master in any manner maimed such a 
servant, even to the breaking of a tooth, he was 
obliged to manumit him. 

4. The Hebrews were not only positively for- 
bidden to deliver up a slave who had escaped from 
his master, but were commanded to allow him to 
dwell in the place which he chose, in any of the 
gates where it liked him best. Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. 
It is not necessary that I attempt to contrast these 
laws with the laws of the Southern States, respect- 
ing slavery. Every one must, I think, perceive 
the unreasonableness of pleading the Jewish laws 
as authority for an institution so entirely dissimilar, 
and so forgetful of the limitations by which that 
practice was originally guarded. If it be said 
that the Jewish commonwealth was so peculiar that 
it is impossible for us to conform ourselves to its 
laws in this respect, this I think establishes the 
very point in dispute ; namely, that the Jewish 
law was made exclusively for that people, and can 
be pleaded in justification by no other people what- 
ever. 

And again, this last precept, I think, clearly 
shows that Moses intended to abolish slavery. How 
could slavery long continue in a country where 
every one was forbidden to deliver up a fugitive 
slave ? How different would be the condition of 



60 DR. wayland's letters. 

slaves, and how soon would slavery itself cease, 
were this the law of compulsory bondage among 
us! 

I have already been so long detained upon the 
first proposition of the argument derived from the 
Old Testament, that I have room for but few words 
to devote to the second. The remarks above will, 
however, render extended discussion unnecessary. 
The second proposition is as follows : " God sanc- 
tioned slavery among the Hebrews." 

If by the word sanctioned it is meant that God 
in any manner testified his cipprohaiion of slavery, 
I .am obliged to say, that the evidence of such sanc- 
tion nowhere exists, to my knowledge, in the Old 
Testament. Precisely as in the case of divorce, 
the institution was permitted and regulated ; abso- 
lutely nothing more. In the mean time principles 
were inculcated, and laws were enacted, which 
must naturally, in the end, undermine and over- 
throw it. Slavery, so far as I can perceive, is no 
more sanctioned in the Old Testament than poly- 
gamy and divorce, and these institutions were, in 
precisely the same manner as slavery, tolerated 
and regulated, while they Vvere, both before and 
afterwards, declared to be totally at variance with 
the whole will of God. From the fact of tolera- 
tion and regulation of these practices, therefore, 
we can no more infer the approbation of God in 
the one case than in the other. 

The passage from Leviticus xxv. 44-46, is not, 
that I can see, at all at variance with the view 
which I have taken on this subject. " Both thy 
bond-men, and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt 
have, shall be of the heathen tliat are round about 



DR. wayland's letters. 61 

you ; of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond- 
maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers 
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, 
and of their families that are with you, which they 
begat in your land : and they shall be your pos- 
session. And ye shall take them as an inherit- 
ance for your children after you, to inherit them 
for a possession ; they shall be your bond-men for 
ever : but over your brethren the children of Is- 
rael, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." 
If any one will take the trouble to turn to the chap- 
ter and read from the beginning, he will perceive 
that its general intention is to inculcate the duty of 
kindness to their Jewish brethren as distinguished 
from the heathen. The verses above quoted are a 
particular exemplification of a general law. They 
really say no more than that the Hebrews might 
hold slaves for life of the Canaanites, but not of 
the Hebrews. I know that the word " shalf is 
used when speaking of this subject, but it is clearly 
used as prophetic and not as mandatory ; it tells 
what icould or what might be, and not what should 
or must be. No one can for a moment confound 
this use of it with that in the ten command- 
ments ; nor can any one suppose it to impose any 
obligation on the Hebrews to hold slaves, either of 
their own brethren or of strangers. As this is the 
strongest passage in the Old Testament in favor of 
the view which we are examining, I do not know 
that it is necessary to extend this part of the dis- 
cussion any farther. 

Let us now review the ground which we have 
passed over. I have supposed that the argument 
by which slavery is justified from the Old Testa- 

6 



62 DR. wayland's letters. 

ment is properly expressed by the following syllo- 
gism. 

1. Whatever God sanctioned among the He- 
brews he sanctioned for all men and at all times. 

2. God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews. 
Therefore, 

3. God sanctioned slavery among all men and 
at all times. 

I suppose myself to have shown that the first 
of these propositions is at variance with reason and 
the Scriptures, whether the word sanction mean 
tolerate or enact ; that the second proposition is un- 
true, if the word sanction mean any thing more 
than tolerate ; and as with this meaning it can at 
the present day afford no justification of slavery, 
therefore the conclusion that God in the Old Tes- 
tament sanctions slavery to all men, that is, to us, 
is without foundation. 

I merely use this technical formality, as I have 
said before, because I wish to expose my views in 
the clearest light, so that if I err, I may the more 
easily be corrected. There is no one, my dear 
brother, who is more capable of detecting my er- 
ror, if it exist, than yourself; and there is no man 
living before whom I would more willingly stand 
corrected. 

I am, my dear brother, yours with every sen- 
timent of Christian afiection. 

The Author of the Moral Science. 



DR. wayland's letters. 63 

LETTER V. 
TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

Li my last letter I attempted an examination of 
the argument derived from the Old Testament in 
favor of slavery. It becomes me next to consider 
the manner in which this institution is treated in 
the New Testament. Before, however, I do this, 
it will be proper to offer a few suggestions on the 
subject of expediency. This topic, as I am aware, 
is introduced only incidentally into the discussion^ 
Nevertheless, as it is liable to embarrass our judg- 
ments, in the further prosecution of this inquiry, 
I propose briefly to consider it in this place. 

It gives me great pleasure to declare that I 
cheerfully and heartily coincide with you in the 
spirit and intention of your remarks on this sub- 
ject. I admire the indignation with which you 
repel the suspicion that the Saviour or his apostles 
would, for the sake of escaping persecution, shun 
to declare the whole counsel of God. I sympa- 
thize in the scorn with which you contemplate that 
craven spirit, which, while it " speaks great swell- 
ing words," yet has " men's persons in admiration 
because of advantage." I know of nothing more 
utterly contemptible. Disgraceful, however, as it 
is everywhere, it is specially so in the Christian 
church, and more than all in the Christian minis- 
try. We have all seen the evils of this sort of 
expediency. It has too frequently brought the 
ministry of the gospel into contempt in the eyes of 



64 DR, WAYLAND S LETTERS. 

all honorable and high-minded men. Holding these 
views, I should be thoroughly ashamed if any thing 
that I have ever said or written, has justly led any 
one to suppose that I consider our Lord or his 
apostles capable of so unmanly a wickedness. I 
am, therefore, gratified with your allusion to the 
subject, as it will enable me to explain my views 
more explicitly. I hope that I may be able so to 
illustrate them, that on this point at least there may 
be no difference of opinion between us. 

The word " expedient'' means, " fitness or suit- 
ableness to effect some end, or purpose intended." 
In this sense it is morally neutral, being in itself 
neither good nor bad, but deriving its moral quality 
from some circumstance extraneous to itself. I 
have said that it is morally neutral. This, how- 
ever, expresses not the whole truth. Expediency, 
that is, the use of means suitable or fitted to ac- 
complish an end, is the simple and universal dic- 
tate of intelligence. A man would scarcely be 
deemed of sound mind unless he obeyed the dic- 
tates of such an expediency. Nay, if he failed 
to avail himself of such means, he might be mor- 
ally delinquent. For instance, if a man were 
charged with the accomplishment of some good 
design, 'and neglected to use the means suited to 
effect it, or still more if he used means of a directly 
opposite tendency, we should all declare him cul- 
pable. His conduct would show that his interest 
in the good work was not sufficient to prompt him 
to the use of the proper means to insure his suc- 
cess. 

We see then, clearly, that simple expediency, 
that is, the use of the means suitable to accomplish 



DR. wayland's letters. 63i 

an end, is in itself innocent, that it may be com- 
mend able, and that the want of it may justly ex- 
pose us to censure. On the other hand, it is 
equally evident that expediency may be mean, 
contemptible, cowardly, and wicked. In what 
manner, then, may these two cases be distinguish- 
ed from each other. 

The end which we desire to accomplish may be 
either bad or good. As, however, no means which 
we use to accomplish a bad end can be innocent, 
we may at once dismiss this class of cases from 
our consideration. The question then will be re- 
duced to the following : Under what circumstances 
is expediency in the accomplishment of a good end 
wicked, and under what circumstances is it inno- 
cent ? 

We have seen that expediency, in itself, is not 
only innocent, but that it may be even commend- 
able. When it is wicked, the wickedness must 
arise, therefore, from some cause aside from the 
fact that the act seems to be expedient. In other 
words, then, expediency is wicked either when the 
act which we deem expedient is in itself wicked ; 
or when the act itself is performed from a wicked 
motive. When neither of these is the case, when 
the act violates no moral law, either in act or in 
motive, it is as innocent an act as any other. And 
moreover, we see that these two qualities of the act 
are entirely distinct from each other. Let an act 
seem ever so expedient, this does not affect its 
moral character. If it be wicked, it is just as 
wicked as if it did not seem expedient ; if it be 
virtuous, it is just as virtuous whether it seem to 
be expedient or otherwise. 

6* 



66 DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 

Let US now illustrate this distinction by a refer- 
ence to some of the cases in which expediency 
clearly partakes of one or the other of these char- 
acters. 

I may for instance desire to promulgate the 
knowledge of the gospel among the heathen ; and, 
in order to convince them of its truth, may make use 
of pious frauds, and work before them false mira- 
cles. I may suppose that by so doing I shall con- 
vert men's souls. But I have done wickedly. I 
have lied ; and more than this, I have lied in the 
name of the Most High God. Again, suppose 1 
wish to increase the interest of the public at home 
in the cause of missions, or any other scheme of 
benevolence, and I utter exaggerated statements, I 
tell stories which I know to be false, or which I 
have no reason to believe to be true, and do this 
for the sake of " advancing the cause ;"" this also is 
wicked. It is a sheer lie just as much when ut- 
tered to support a good cause, as a bad one. The 
cause makes it no better, and my hypocrisy makes 
it worse. 

Again, suppose that I understand the Scriptures 
to reveal a particular system of truth to the hu- 
man race, and I profess to be moved by the Holy 
Ghost to enforce this truth upon my fellow-men. 
I however think that I can make it more accept- 
able to them by totally withholding a part of it, or 
by adding to it, or by modifying the whole or any 
part of it. In so doing I am guilty of a great 
wickedness. God has authorized me to preach the 
preaching that he bids me, and no other ; to preach 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth. I am guilty of telling a lie in his name, of 



DR. wayland's letters. &J 

usurping the prerogative of the Most High, and 
for the consequences of my sin I am responsible 
in his sight. 

Or again, suppose that I understand the revela- 
tion which he has given, but I fear that to deliver 
it just as he has revealed it, will expose me to per- 
secution, or will endanger my property, my influ- 
ence, my reputation, or my life ; and I, from the 
fear of consequences to jnyself, abridge, or alter, or 
modify the message which God has given me : in 
this case again I do wickedly. I violate the com- 
mandment of my Maker, and I prefer my temporal 
happiness to the will of God, and the eternal sal- 
vation of the souls of my fellow-men. I deny 
Christ before men, and he will deny me before the 
angels of God. 

Or again, suppose that while I myself hold 
firmly to the doctrines of the gospel, I, from the 
fear of popular clamor, adopt means for advancing 
what I believe to be truth, of which my conscience 
and reason disapprove. In this case also I do 
wickedly. I obey men rather than God. I ruin 
men's souls rather than incur their displeasure. I 
do, as if by the command of God, what I do not 
believe that he has commanded, and do this be- 
cause my fellow- men desire it, I am guilty, and 
to God I must answer it. 

In these instances, and in all such as these, it is 
in vain to plead that I desire to do good, that I 
wish to advance the cause of truth, or that I wish 
to preserve my influence for the sake of using it 
on some other occasion. God does not choose to 
be served by abandoning his service, and serving 
man in his place. He has not commanded us to 



68 DR. wayland's letters. 

serve him by doing wickedness. Our influence is 
not more valuable than truth and righteousness. 
When we can only preserve it by doing wrong, it 
is clear that God does not intend us to hold it any 
longer ; and we cannot hold it longer, except on 
the peril of our souls. 

Again, expediency may become wicked, not 
only by doing an act in itself wrong, but by doing 
an act in itself innocent from an impure motive. 
We have a striking illustration of this in the case 
of the apostles Peter and Paul. In the commence- 
ment of the gospel dispensation, when Judaism 
was fading, but had not yet entirely vanished 
away, there was a considerable mingling of the 
Jewish rites with Christianity. Many of the sin- 
cere believers in Jesus, from the force of old asso- 
ciation, adhered to the rites of Judaism ; looking 
upon them as by no means obligatory, but yet 
pleasant and perhaps profitable. And yet more, 
as the Jews would much more readily hear the 
truth from one who respected their law than from 
a Gentile, a concession to their prejudices, for tlieir 
own good, was in many cases innocent. The in- 
nocency, however, depended wholly on the motive. 
Peter, from the fear of man, was led into sin. He 
conformed to the Mosaic ritual, to avoid the offence 
of the cross' ; and so acted as to lead men to be- 
lieve that he considered its rites and ceremonies 
as of yet binding obligation. For this cause Paul 
" rebuked him to the face, in the presence of them 
all, because he was to be blamed." Yet Paul 
himself circumcised Timothy, kept the feast of 
Pentecost, and in many other cases yielded obedi- 
ence to the law. What then was the difference in 



DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 



the moral character of these actions ? Simply this ; 
Paul yielded this obedience for the good of others, 
everywhere, and at all times, stating the grounds on 
which he acted, and in the face of all opposition, 
and in despite of the bitterest persecution, con- 
tending, that Christ having fulfilled the law, it was 
no longer of binding efficacy upon the Jews, or 
upon any other men. Peter, on the contrary, for 
the sake of avoiding persecution, kept the law, and 
urged the Gentiles to keep it, as though it were 
still an ordinance of God, and as if our salvation 
depended on the keeping of it. No man ever 
understood this distinction better than the apostle 
Paul, and no man ever acted upon it with more 
promptness or precision. He circumcised Timothy, 
in order to render him more acceptable as a 
preacher of the gospel to the Jews. But, when the 
performance of this rite upon Titus was pressed 
upon the apostle as a matter of moral obligation, he 
utterly refused to perform it, and that because of 
false brethren, who desired to bring the disciples in- 
to bondage ; " to whom," says he indignantly, " we 
gave place by subjection, no not for an hour, that 
the truth of the gospel might continue with you." 
Such are some of the cases in which the acting 
from expediency involves moral guilt, and fre- 
quently guilt of no ordinary turpitude. Let us 
now examine some of the cases in which expedi- 
ency may be employed innocently. I suppose 
they may all be comprehended under the following 
rule. We may innocently employ any means for 
the accomplishing of our purposes, which are in- 
nocent in themselves, and which we employ with 
a virtuous intention. 



70 DR. wayland's letters. 

Let us examine a few cases which come under 
this rule. 

Suppose that I am communicating to another a 
system of truth or of duty, and think that he will 
be most likely to be influenced by my teaching, if 
I unfold my views gradually, allowing one portion 
to work its part of the change which I hope to 
effect, before I introduce another. In this is there 
the violation of any moral law ? Am I obliged to 
present the truth in such a manner as will be most 
likely to ensure its entire rejection? Ami not 
bound, in such a case, to consult the dictates of my 
own reason, and the best good of him whom it is 
my duty to benefit ? The Bible is filled with 
cases of just such expediency as this. The grad- 
ual development of the truths of revelation under 
the several dispensations, illustrate it on the widest 
possible scale, and show that the Deity frequently 
allows ages to intervene between the discovery of 
one truth and the discovery of the next which is 
intimately associated with it. Our Saviour dis- 
closed his doctrines to his disciples, as their minds 
by becoming expanded were able to receive them. 
Even at the close of his ministry he affirmed, " I 
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can- 
not hear them now.'' John xvi. 12. To precisely 
the same effect is the saying of the apostle Paul to 
the Corinthians, 1 Cor. iii. 1,2: " And I, breth- 
ren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual but 
as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I 
have fed you with i7iil/c and not with 7neat ; for 
hitherto ye were not able to hear it, nor noiv are ye 
able." Here the apostle distinctly recognises the 
principle that he delivered divine truth to the 



DR. wayland's letters. 71 

Corinthians, not in its totality, but in such portions, 
and in such manner, as the weakened understand- 
ings and benighted consciences of his hearers 
would enable them to receive it. This, then', is, 
undoubtedly, a proper and innocent use of expedi- 
ency. 

But again, there may be a choice not only in 
respect to the succession of the several parts, but 
also in respect to the manner in which the whole 
or any part of the truth shall be presented. Thus, 
for instance, suppose that in the discussion of the 
subject of slavery there were no wrong in apply- 
ing opprobrious epithets to fellow-citizens, and to 
Christian brethren ; inasmuch as the use of these 
epithets would disincline men to receive what we 
believe to be the truth, would not both wisdom as 
well as Christian charity suggest the expediency 
of laying them aside ? 

Again, it is frequently the case that we wish to 
inculcate a duty upon another, to which he is par- 
ticularly adverse, and of which the obligation de- 
pends upon principles with which he is not fa- 
miliar. In such a case, while he will not hearken 
for a moment to the precept, he may be willing 
attentively to consider the principles on which it is 
founded. Here I see no reason why I may not 
inculcate the principle, and leave it to work out its 
result, instead of directly inculcating the precept. 
For instance, I find a man violently enraged, and 
burnintr with vindictiveness towards another who 
has injured him. It is his duty to forgive the of- 
fender. But the suggestion of this duty might 
only enrage him the more. May I not, then, in- 
stead of inculcating the duty directly, unfold to 



72 

him our relations to God, how much we have 
sinned against him, liow much we all need his for- 
giveness, and how much and how often we have 
all offended our brethren and needed their forgive- 
ness ? I well know, that if these sentiments once 
gain possession of his mind, his wrath will be 
quelled, and he will not dare to ask forgiveness of 
God until he has exercised forgiveness to his bro- 
ther. This is almost precisely what our Lord 
himself has done, when he taught charity to the 
Pharisee with whom he was dining, Luke vii. 
39—49. So when he was called upon to interfere 
in the case of the brother who was defrauded of 
his inheritance, Luke xii. 13-20. Thus also he 
inculcates the duty of forgiveness. Matt, xviii. 
23-35. Here he gives a very general precept, 
but explains the principle at length. A beautiful 
instance of this kind of expediency is also seen in 
2 Cor., 8th chapter. St. Paul is desirous of in- 
culcating upon the Corinthians the duty of liber- 
ality. He does not, however, as he had a right to 
do, make use of liis apostolical authority ; he does 
not demand this or that portion of their income ; 
but he merely tells them what other churches had 
done, and adds, " Ye know the grace of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who, though he was rich, yet for your 
sakes became poor, that ye through his poverty 
might become rich." Indeed, if we were disposed 
to generalize this idea, we might easily show that 
the gospel of Christ is rather a system of princi- 
ples than of precepts. It is a treasure-house of 
elementary and all-controlling moral truth. This 
truth it presents to the understanding, and presses 
upon the conscience, leaving it to every individual 



DR. wayland's letters. 73 

to carry it into practice according to the peculiari- 
ties of his individual situation, provided only he do 
it honestly, earnestly, with pure love to God and 
ardent charity to man. 

This form of expediency — the inculcating of a 
fundamental truth, rather than of the duty which 
springs immediately out of it, seems to me inno- 
cent. I go further : in some cases it may be really 
demanded. Thus, suppose a particular wrong to 
have become a social evil, to have become inter- 
woven with the whole framework of society, and 
to be established by positive enactment and imme- 
morial usage ; suppose that all departments of 
society have become adjusted to it, and that much 
instruction is necessary before any party can avail 
itself of the advantages of a righteous change ; 
suppose also the whole community to be ignorant 
of the moral principles by which both the wrong 
is condemned and the right established. In such 
a case, the wrong could only be abolished by 
chanrrinff the sentiments and enlifirhtenins: the con- 
sciences of the whole community. Here it seems 
to me that it would be not only allowable, but a 
matter of imperative duty, to inculcate the princi- 
ples on vv^hich the duty rested, rather than the 
duty itself. The one being fixed in the mind, 
would necessarily produce the other ; and thus 
the end would be in the most certain manner ac- 
complished. 

It is in this manner that the New Testament 
has generally dealt with the various forms of social 
evil. Take for instance civil government. At 
the time of Christ and his apostles, the only form 
of government known in the civilized world, was a 

7 



74 DR. wayland's letters. 

most abominable and oppressive tyranny. Yet the 
New Testament utters no precepts in regard to 
forms of government, or the special duties of rulers. 
It goes further. It commands men everywhere to 
obey the powers that be, so far as this could be 
done with a good conscience towards God. But it 
at the same time inculcates those truths concern- 
ing the character, rights, responsibilities, and obli- 
gations of man, which have been ever since work- 
ing out the freedom of the human race ; and 
which have received, as I believe, their fullest de- 
velopment in the principles of the American Decla- 
ration of Independence. Indeed, in no other man- 
ner could the New Testament have become a 
system of religion for the whole human race, adapt- 
ed to meet the varying aspects of human depravi- 
ty. If it had merely taught precepts, whatever 
was not forbidden must have been taken as per- 
mitted. Hence, unchecked wickedness would 
soon have abounded, and the revelation of God 
must have become a nullity. But by teaching 
principles of universal application, it is prepared 
to meet every rising form of moral deviation, and 
its authority is now as all-pervading as at the 
moment when it was first delivered. Our Saviour, 
as it appears to me, carries out this principle to the 
utmost, when, setting aside as it were all other 
precepts, he declares that our whole duty is summed 
up in these two commandments, " Thou shalt love 
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy 
neighbor as thyself ; for this is the law and the 
prophets." That is, I suppose him to mean that 
cherishing these principles in our hearts and cai 



DR. wayland's letters. 75 

rying them out into all our actions, we shall do the 
whole will of God without any other precept. 

I have thus, my dear brother, endeavored, in as 
distinct a manner as I am able, to develop my 
views on the subject of expediency. I have done 
it with great diffidence, because I know it is one 
from a misconception of which great misunder- 
standing is likely to arise. It seemed, however, 
to be required by the nature of our discussion ; 
and I hope that what I have suggested may throw 
some little light upon the subject. I know of but 
few points in casuistry which at the present mo- 
ment require a more thorough examination. It is 
from a misconception here that Jesuitism has arisen 
on the one hand, and fanaticism on the other. The 
Jesuit, whether Protestant or Catholic, believes 
himself at liberty to use any devices whatever, to 
accomplish a good design ; or, in other words, he 
declares that the end sanctifies the means. The 
fanatic, provided his end be good, considers him- 
self at liberty to deride the dictates of reason, and 
use the means which have the least possible ten- 
dency to accomplish the end which he has in view. 
He declares that he has no regard for consequences. 
He seems, however, to forget that the end which 
he has in view is a consequence, and that it must 
be a consequent, that is, an effect of certain causes, 
which, in the providence of God, are ordained to 
produce it. If, therefore, he has no regard to con- 
sequences, and sets in action causes without regard 
to their eifects, he is as likely to produce any other 
end as that which he intends. I think, besides, it 
may sometimes be observed that while men are so 
entirely reckless of the consequences of their con- 



76 DR. waytand's letters. 

duct upon the cause which they espouse, they are 
not at all unmindful of the consequences to them- 
selves, and not unfrequently pursue the same 
courses which shrewd, selfish, and intriguing men 
adopt, to advance, by means of a cause, their 
own personal interests. 

But I am wandering from the subject imme- 
diately before us, and will therefore close by as- 
suring you that I am, with the greatest personal 
esteem and Christian affection, yours very truly, 
The Author of the Moral Science. 



LETTER VI. 

TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

You will at least m.\e me credit for beins an 
indefatigable correspondent. I hope, however, 
that you are not wearied either with the number, 
or the length, of my replies. Although I have 
commenced my sixth letter, I believe that I have 
alluded to no topic on which both you and our 
brethren at the South have not placed reliance, in 
the construction of their argument in favor of 
slavery. I rejoice that my labor is drawing to a 
close. But one more subject remains to be con- 
sidered ; it is the argument derived from the New 
Testament. With this I shall close my remarks, 
after having asked your attention to some incidental 



DR. wayland's letters. 77 

reflections which could not so well have been in- 
terwoven with the main body of the discussion. 

In my letter on the Old Testament argument in 
favor of slavery, I suppose myself to have shown, 
that the Mosaic law contains nothing more than y 
the permission of slavery ; that this permission t 
was granted specially and exclusively to the Jews ; ^ 
and that we could not assume it as a law for our- 
selves, without claiming every other permission 
that was granted to them, and subjecting ourselves 
to every precept that was enacted for them. I 
cannot but believe that you, as a preacher of the 
New Testament, will agree with me in this view 
of the subject. I am confident that you would 
hardly reason with a man who should endeavor to 
enforce any other Mosaic usage, or plead any other 
Mosaic license, on the same grounds that are used 
to sustain the institution of American slavery. 
Indeed, I can hardly suppose that any of our South- 
ern brethren place any great reliance on this part 
of the argument. I feel assured that they will not, 
if they reflect on the consequences which it neces- 
sarily involves. 

I think, then, that the Scriptural argument in 
defence of slavery is narrowed down to the limits 
of the New Testament. Let us, then, endeavor 
carefully to inquire whether this institution is sup- 
ported by the instructions of the Saviour and his 
apostles. You say that " slavery was at least tol- 
erated by Christ and his apostles," and hence you 
argue that it is no wrong ; and, therefore, I pre- 
sume, consider that this toleration is universal ; 
and, if so, that slavery is right and proper every- 
where, or, as you well remark, semper et uhique* 



78 

You do not, I know, thus generalize the doctrine ; 
but I do not see how such generalization is to be 
avoided. The New Testament was not given, like 
the Mosaic law, to one people, but to the whole 
race ; not for one period, but for all time. If, 
J, therefore, it tolerates slavery really and truly — if 
' this is the doctrine of our Saviour, it justifies this 
institution to all men ; and Pagans, Christians, and 
Mohammedans who have united in abolishing it, 
have greatly erred in supposing it to be at variance 
with the clearest principles either of natural jus- 
tice or of Christian duty. 

It is then important to us as disciples of Christ, 
to ascertain in how far the New Testament really 
upholds what the natural conscience of man, from 
at least as far back as the time of Aristotle, has 
declared to be a violation of the plainest dictates 
of natural justice. I will not detain you by in- 
quiring into the meaning of the word tolerate. It 
may perhaps convey a stronger sense than the 
facts will warrant. I will at once come to the 
passages in the New Testament in which this sub- 
ject is mentioned. By calmly considering these, 
we may, I think, ascertain what foundation is fur- 
nished for the superstructure which has so fre- 
quently been erected upon them. 

1. Slaves are frequently alluded to by our 
Saviour in the Gospels. Several parables are 
founded upon this relation. But as tlie object of 
these parables is to enforce some duty which had 
no respect to slavery, no one will for a moment 
pretend that this sort of allusion has any bearing 
upon the question. Our Lord illustrates the wis- 
dom of men in temporal, contrasted with their folly 



DR. wayland's letters. 79 

in spiritual concerns, by the parable of the stew- 
ard who had wasted his lord's goods. But this is 
never pleaded in justification of dishonesty in a 
confidential agent. The same principle applies 
equally to one case as to the other. 

2. In the Epistles the relation between masters 
and slaves is several times adverted to. I will 
quote, so far as I remember, all the passages which 
are considered to be of importance in the settle- 
ment of this question. 

1. Of the duties of slaves. 

Ephesians vi. 5-8 : " Servants, be obedient to 
them that are your masters according to the flesh, 
with fear and trembling, in singleness of your 
heart, as unto Christ. Not with eye-service, as 
men-pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing 
the will of God from the heart ; with good will 
doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men ; 
knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, 
the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he 
be bond or free." 

Colossians iii. 22-25 : " Servants, obey in all 
things your masters according to the flesh ; not 
with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but in single- 
ness of heart, fearing God : and whatsoever ye do, 
do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men ; 
knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the re- 
ward of the inheritance : for ye serve the Lord 
Christ. But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for 
the wrong which he hath done : and there is no 
respect of persons." 

1 Timothy vi. 1-5 : " Let as many servants as 
are under the yoke count their own masters worthy 
of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine 



80 DR. wayland's letters. 

he not hlasplicmed. And they that have believing 
masters, let them not despise them, because they 
are brethren ; but rather do them service, because 
they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the 
benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any 
man teach otherwise, and consent not to v/hole- 
some words, even the words of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and to the doctrine which is accordincr to 
godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting 
about questions and strifes of words, wiiereof 
cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, per- 
verse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and des- 
titute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: 
from such withdraw thyself." 

Titus ii. 9, 10 : " Exhort servants to be obe- 
dient unto their own masters, and to please them 
well in all things ; not answering again ; not pur- 
loining, but showing all good fidelity ; that they may 
adorn the doctrine of God our Scwiour in all things.'^ 

1 Peter ii. 18-23 : "Servants, be subject to your 
masters with all fear ; not only to the good and 
gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank- 
worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure 
grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, 
if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall 
take it patiently ? But if, when ye do well, and 
suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable 
with God. For even hereunto were ye called : 
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an 
example, that ye should follow his steps : who did 
n6 sin, neither was guile found in his mouth : who 
when he was reviled, reviled not again ; when he 
suffered, he threatened not ; but committed himself 
to him that judgeth righteously." 



DR. wayland's letters. 81 

Now I do not see that the scope of these passa- 
ges can be misunderstood. They teach patience, 
meekness, fidelity, and charity — duties which are 
obligatory on Christians towards all men, and of 
course towards masters. These duties are obli- 
gatory on us towards enemies, because an ene- 
my, lilce every other man, is a moral creature of 
God. They are demanded of Christians, because 
by acting otherwise they would bring reproach 
upon the cause of Christ. And it is to be observed, 
that the apostles are in every case careful not to 
utter a syllable by which they concede the right 
of the master, but they always add as a reason for 
these precepts, the relation in which the slave 
stands to Christ. The fact seems to be simply 
this. There are certain vices to which ignorant 
and ill-instructed persons, when laboring for others, 
are specially liable ; such, for instance, are diso- 
bedience, lying, purloining, eye-service, and the 
like. These practices are inconsistent with the 
Christian character, and the apostles forbid them, 
referring always to the principles of love and pie- 
ty which the gospel inculcates. These instruc- 
tions, then, would have been appropriate (as indeed 
they are everywhere appropriate at this moment, 
and just as appropriate to free laborers as slaves) 
had there been no such institution as slavery in 
existence. They were therefore appropriate to 
slaves, who stood in the relation of ijcrsons doing 
service. These precepts seem to me to emanate 
directly from the principles of Christianity, and 
hence, in 1 Tim-, vi. 3-5, the apostle sternly rebukes 
those that teach any other doctrine. But in this 
very rebuke he makes no allusion to the right of 



82 DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 

the master over the slave ; and boldly exposes the 
motives of those who would excite insubordination 
for the sake of their own personal gain. To pre- 
sent this subject in the clearest light, I ask, do our 
obligations to practise fidelity, honesty, charity, to 
avoid purloining, lying, eye-service, depend on the 
justice of the authority which the master claims 
over the slave ? If not, the inculcation of these 
duties in no manner involves a concession of the 
claim of the master to that authority. Supposing 
slavery to be wrong, will this wrong justify a 
Christian in lying, stealing, deception, or even in 
rebellion against the authority by which he is un- 
justly held in bondage ? 

If this be so, the only foundation for the argu- 
ment in favor of slavery from the New Testament 
must be found in the precepts which it addresses 
to masters. These are as follows : 

Ephesians vi. 8 : " And ye masters, do the same 
things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing 
that your Master also is in heaven ; neither is 
there respect of persons with him." This passage 
immediately follows that above quoted from Ephes. 
vi. 5-8, and merely inculcates reciprocity of duties 
between master and servant. 

Colossians iv. 1 : " Masters, render to your ser- 
vants that which is just and equal ; knowing that 
ye also have a Master in heaven." 

These precepts simply inculcate on masters the 
duty of treating the slave as he himself would 
wish to be treated ; and of allowing to him suita- 
ble means of subsistence. And this is all. 

Let us now see the use that is made of these 
two passages. They are supposed to sanction the 



DR. wayland's letters. 83 

whole system of domestic slavery ; and to grant a 
universal permission to establish and maintain it 
everywhere and at all times ; for, as I have said, 
if it be a permission of tlie New Testament, it is of 
course without limitation. Let us see what this 
permission involves. It is the right to compel an- 
other man, a fellow-creature of God, in every re- 
spect made like to myself, in his social, intellectual, 
and moral nature, and held at the bar of God to 
precisely the same responsibility as myself, to 
labor for me without his contract and consent. 
This right also, as I have shown, involves the right 
to use all the means necessary to its establishment 
and perpetuity ; and of course the right to crush 
his intellectual and social nature, and to stupify 
his conscience, in so far as may be necessary to 
enable me to enjoy this right with the least possible 
peril. Nay, more, I do not see that it does not 
sanction the whole system of the slave-trade. If I 
have a right to a thing after I have gotten it, I 
have a natural right to the means necessary for 
getting it. If this be so, I should be as much 
justified in sending a vessel to Africa, murdering 
a part of the inhabitants of a village, and making- 
slaves of the rest, as I should be in hunting a herd 
of wild animals, and cither slaying them or sub- 
jecting them to the yoke. If I err in making 
these inferences, I err innocently ; for they seem 
to me to be of necessity involved in the principles 
which would be established by the argument in 
question. 

Now I ask, was there ever such a moral super- 
structure raised from such a foundation ? The 
doctrine of purgatory, from a verse in Maccabees, 



84 DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 

the doctrine of the papacy, from the saying of 
Christ to Peter, the establishment of the inquisition, 
from the oblio-ation to extend the knowledfje of 
religious truth, all of these seem to me as nothing 
to it. I say it with entire kindness, for on such a 
subject I am incapable of any other feeling, if the 
religion of Christ allows us to take such a license 
from such precepts as these, the New Testament 
would be the greatest curse that ever was inflicted 
on our race, 

I need not say, my dear brother, that I know 
you would abhor such an inference as much as 
any man on earth. I know well your kindness of 
heart, and what is still better, your entire will, 
fully to subject yourself to the whole doctrine of 
Christ. But, I ask, do not the principles which 
our Southern brethren adopt, lead to precisely 
these results ? Let us test the case by an example. 
Suppose that a foreign foe should land an over- 
whelming force on your shores, for the sake of re- 
ducing the State of South Carolina to bondage : 
v/ould not the language of every man, because he 
is a man, be, " Give me liberty or give me death !" 
And do you suppose that the apostolic precept re- 
specting masters and slaves was intended to stifle 
this first and strongest aspiration of a human soul ? 
Suppose that such an enemy should establish this 
authority, and reduce you to servitude, it would 
be your duty as men, and especially as Christians, 
to be kind, charitable, and forbearing ; to avoid 
lying, purloining, and deceit. But would it not 
be a most cruel mockery to plead the apostolic 
precepts on this subject in justification of the ty- 
ranny and oppression under which you were crush- 



DR. wayland's letters. 85 

ed ? Now, strong as this case may seem, I think 
it is put fairly. For we are always to remember 
that a New Testament rule is a universal rule. It 
was not made for the Northern or the Southern 
States, for white men or for black men, but for all 
men. And hence the precept which would justify 
slavery in one case, would justify it equally in all 
similar cases. 

But it may be said, that although these precepts, 
taken hy themselves, will not authorize slavery, yet 
that it is really authorized by the inference which 
may be drawn from a consideration of the circum- 
stances under which the precepts were delivered. 
At the time of our Saviour and his apostles, slavery 
was universal, and was of a very oppressive char- 
acter. These precepts were given for the sake of 
correcting its abuses. But inasmuch as the abuses 
were thus corrected, and nothnig was said respect- 
ing the institution itself, it is inferred that the gos- 
pel considers slavery in itself as innocent, and only 
reproves those incidental wrongs which are by no 
means essential to it. If this be so, it will, I think, 
be true, that we are to learn our duty, the uni- 
versal duty of man respecting slavery, irom a con- 
sideration of Roman slavery in connection with 
the precepts of the New Testament. Roman 
slavery is the basis on which we are to rest. This, 
in its principles, was right, and agreeable to the 
will of God, and became at variance with the gos- 
pel only by abuse. The New Testament under- 
took to correct these abuses, and what is not thus 
corrected is therefore according to the will of 
God. 

Let us then inquire what were some of the fea- 
8 



86 DR. wayland's letters. 

tures of slavery among the Romans at the time of 
Christ. 

1. Slavery* was universal throughout the em- 
pire, and the number of slaves almost exceeds be- 
lief. Some rich individuals possessed 10,000, and 
others even 20,000 of their fellow-creatures. In 
Italy it is computed that there were three slaves to 
one freeman, and that their number in this part of 
the empire alone, was, at this time, more than 
twenty millions. 

2. Persons became slaves by being made cap- 
tives in war, by purchase from slave dealers, by 
birth, and by the operation of laia ; as for instance 
in consequence of debt or as a punishment for 
crime. Csesar is said to have taken 400,000 cap- 
tives in his Gallic wars alone. The islands of the 
Mediterranean were almost universally slave mar- 
kets. In Delos alone, 10,000 slaves were some- 
times bought and sold in a single day. 

3. On the condition of slaves, it may be re- 
marked that — 

1. The master had the power of life and death 
over the slgive. 

2. Slaves were not permitted to marry. 

3. They were permitted to hold no property as 
their own ; whatever they acquired being the pro- 
perty of their masters. 

4. They were exposed to the most unrelenting 
barbarity, being perfectly unprotected by law, and 
left entirely in the power of their owners. They 

* For these statements respecting slavery among the 
Romans, I am indebted to an article in the Biblical Re- 
pository, for October, ISS.'i, by the Rev. Prof. Edwards, of 
the Theological Seminary, Andovcr. 



DR. wayland's letters. 87 

were liable to every kind of torture ; and cruel 
masters sometimes kept on their estates tormentors 
by profession, for the purpose of punishing their 
slaves. Burning alive was sometimes resorted 
to, and crucifixion was frequently made the fate 
of a slave for trifling misconduct, or from mere 
caprice. In fine, a slave was considered in no 
other light than as a representative of so much 
value. Hence it is not wonderful that they should 
be slain in order to make food for fishes, or, that 
the question should arise, whether, in a storm, a 
man should sacrifice a valuable horse or a less 
valuable slave. 

I need not pursue this subject more at large. It 
is too revolting to humanity. I only present a few 
of the more prominent points for consideration. 
Enough, however, has been adduced to answer the 
purpose of the argument. 

If, then, the view which we are considering be 
correct, the New Testament, with all these facts 
in sight, did really justify Roman slavery in the 
main ; and set itself to correct its abuses. This 
correction is contained in the few lines which I 
have quoted above. All the rest is, therefore, per- 
mitted to us and to all men, on the sanction of in- 
spiration. The selling of prisoners of war, the 
slave-trade itself, (for, as I have said, the Mediter- 
ranean then was full of slavers,) the power of life 
and death over the slave, the prohibition of mar- 
riage, and the infliction of death at the master's 
will, all these are sanctioned by the word of God 
himself. The master has only to forbear threat- 
ening, to give his slave suitable physical comforts, 
as the reward for his toil, and the master's right, 



88 DR. wayland's letters. 

and the authority to exercise this right, remains as 
it was under the Roman empire, in the time of 
Christ. If this be so, there is no reason why 
Christians at the South should be grieved with the 
severity of the laws respecting slaves. These are 
as yet very far within the power confided to the 
master by the New Testament itself. The gos- 
pel of Christ, on the subject of human rights, falls 
infinitely below the Declaration of American In- 
dependence. 

It is said, however, that the gospel allows of 
slavery, but forbids the abuse of it. The distinc- 
tion between the proper use and the abuse of it, 
however, most evidently is not to be found in the 
precepts which we have quoted. Where then is 
it to be found ? Where shall we find the direction 
in the Scriptures by which we shall be guided ? 
Let us take a few instances. Under what circum- 
stances may a man be made a slave ? by war, by 
purchase, by birth, or by all of them ? If unlaw- 
fully enslaved at first, how is the right over him 
afterwards to be lawfully acquired ? Has he a 
right to marry ; and is the relation of marriage 
protected by the rules of Christ on this subject ? 
The Roman law allowed slaves to read, and many 
of them were learned men ; can this permission 
be abrogated ? Can a slave be rightfully forbid- 
den to read the sacred Scriptures ? I will not, 
however, multiply such questions. If it be said 
that the New Testament intends to discriminate 
between the use and the abuse of slavery, it must 
certainly present us with precepts bearing on these 
questions, for they are all eminently practical, and 
they are of daily occurrence. But where in the 



DR. wayland's letters. 89 

New Testament shall we find any precept by which 
such questions can be decided ? Who would ever 
think of going to the New Testament for such a 
decision ? Where have we ever known the New 
Testament to be called upon to decide the ques- 
tion, what constitutes the proper use, and what the 
abuse of the institution of slavery ? Would it not 
be utterly impossible to find the elements for such 
a decision in any part of the word of God ? 

If this be so, I think it must be evident that the 
precepts of the New Testament furnish no justifi- 
cation of slavery, whether they be considered 
either absolutely, or in relation to the usage "of the 
Roman empire at the time of Christ. All that can 
justly be said seems to me to be this, the New 
Testament contains noprecept prohibitory of slavery . 
This must, I think, be granted ; but this is all. 

But if the New Testament has left no precept 
justifying, and no prohibition forbidding slavery, 
are we to conclude that it is wholly indifferent on 
the subject ? I answer, by no means. It has, in 
my opinion, prohibited it in a manner far more 
emphatic than could have been done by any pre- 
cept whatever. 

The universal existence of slavery at the time 
of Christ, took its origin from the moral darkness y 
of the age. The immortality of the soul was un- 
known. Out of the Hebrew nation, not a man on 
earth had any true conception either of the char- 
acter of the Deity or of our relations and obliga- 
tions to Him. The law of universal love to man 
had never been heard of. Every nation considered 
every other nation a fit object for plunder. A 
stranger and an enemy were equivalent terms. It 

8* 



90 DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 

was, moreover, an age of great intellectual refine- 
ment, and of unbounded wealth, and hence an age 
of thorough and universal sensuality. Combine 
these elements together, and slavery must natu- 
rally result from them, and must continue as long 
as they existed. 

In what manner, then, did the Saviour and his 
apostles deal with this universal sin ? I answer, 
by promulgating such truths concerning the nature 
and destiny of man, his relations and obligations 
both to man and to his Maker, as should render the 
slavery of a human being a manifest moral absur- 
dity ,*that is, a notion diametrically opposed to our 
elementary moral suggestions. I have, in my se- 
cond letter, alluded to those ideas of human na- 
ture, which the Scriptures have revealed. Let us 
observe how strangely they are in contrast with all 
that was then known of the character and value of 
a man. 

To men who had scarcely an idea of the char- 
acter, or even the existence, of a Supreme Intelli- 
gence, and whose objects of adoration were images 
of " gold and silver and stone, graven with art 
and man's device," and whose worship consisted 
in the orgies of Venus and Bacchus, the gospel 
revealed the existence of one only living and true 
Jehovah, all-wise, all-just, all-holy, everywhere 
present beholding the evil and the good, knowing 
the thoughts and intents of the heart, who will 
bring every secret thing into judgment, whether it 
be good or whether it be evil, and who has placed 
us all under one and the same law, that law which 
declares, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself." 



DR. wayland's letters. 91 

To men who had scarcely an idea of existence 
after death, whose notions of futurity were the 
fables of Charon's boat, the Styx, and Tartarus — 
fables which were already held up as objects of 
inextinguishable laughter — the gospel revealed the 
doctrine of man's immortality ; it taught that 
every human being was a never-dying soul ; that 
the world to come was a state either of endless and 
inconceivable happiness or of wo ; that for this 
infinitely important state, the present brief exist- 
ence was the probation and the only probation that 
God had allotted to us ; and that, during this pro- 
bation, every one of our race must by his own 
moral character determine his destiny for himself. 

To men who had scarcely formed an idea of 
their moral relations, the gospel revealed the fact 
that our race were universally sinners, and were, 
without exception, under the condemnation of that 
law which denounces eternal death as the desert of 
every transgression ; that God placed such an es- 
timate upon a human soul, nay, that he so loved 
the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life ; and that, in consequence of 
this atonement, eternal salvation is freely offered 
to every human being, who, repenting of his re- 
bellion, will return to the love and service of God. 

To men steeped in the most debasing and uni- 
versal sensuality, whose motto was, " Let us eat 
and drink, for to-morrow we die," the gospel re- 
vealed the truth, that while this salvation was 
thus freely offered to all, yet still every individual 
of ^ our race was placed on earth to work out his 
salvation with fear and trembling ; that he was 



92 ♦ DR. waylaxd's letters. 

still, in the strictest possible sense, in a state of pro- 
bation ; and that in a world lying in wickedness, 
surrounded by every temptation to sin, exposed to 
all the allurements of vice, and assailed by all the 
arts of the adversary of souls, he must come off 
conqueror over every moral enemy, or else he will 
after all perish under a most aggravated condem- 
nation. 

And lastly, to men who esteemed the people of 
another nation as by nature foes whom they had a 
right to subdue, murder, or enslave, whenever and 
in what manner soever they were able, the gospel 
revealed the fact that all men are, by the act of 
their creation, brethren ; that all are equally be- 
loved by the same Father of all ; that Christ died 
equally for all ; that all are equally exposed to 
the same perdition ; that to all is equally offered 
a mansion in the same Father's house, and that 
the title to that inheritance, the same to all, can be 
secured in no other way, than by obedience to the 
universal law of love, a law enforced by the sol- 
emn sanction, " Inasmuch as ye did it not to one 
of the least of these, ye did it not unto me." 

Such, then, were some of the effulgent truths 
which the gospel poured upon the moral darkness 
of the heathen world. Such was the entire revo- 
lution (the word, you perceive, is feebleness itself 
when applied to such a case) which the gospel 
effected in all the notions which were then enter- 
tained respecting the character, the destiny, the 
responsibilities, and the inestimable value of a man. 
We feel at once that the highest seraph around 
the throne would not dare to violate the meanest 
right of the meanest creature who stood in such a 



DR. wayland's letters. Q3 

relation to God ; infinitely less would he dare, for 
the sake of his own temporary convenience, to in- 
terfere with any of the means to which such a 
creature was entitled, for ascertaining and doing 
the will of God, and thus escaping eternal death, 
and laying hold on everlasting life. " Are they 
not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to 
those that are heirs of salvation ?" What shall 
we say then, if a creature of yesterday, himself 
subject to the same law, exposed to the same con- 
demnation, and going to the same judgment-seat, 
abolishes, at his own pleasure, and on the author- 
ity of physical force, the social, intellectual, and 
moral rights of his brother ; and for the sake of 
pecuniary gain interferes with the most solemn 
relations which can exist between the God and 
Father of us all, and his child here on earth — a 
child redeemed with the precious blood of his only- 
begotten Son. 

It is obvious that such principles as these, instilled 
into the public mind, must of necessity abolish 
slavery, and every other form of wrong. Just in so far 
as slavery is, either in its principles or its practice, at 
variance with these elementary truths of revealed 
religion, it is forbidden. Whether it be thus at 
variance, let every man judge. 

Suppose, then, that slavery were permitted in 
the New Testament, and that, at the same time, 
these truths at variance with it were inculcated, it 
would be evident that the permission must yield to 
the principle. Divorce was permitted, but the He- 
brews were censured for availing themselves of 
the permission. You may give j^our child, if he 
were approaching to years of discretion, permis- 



94 DR. wayland's letters. 

sion to do an act, while you inculcate upon him 
principles which forbid it, for the sake of teaching 
him to be governed by principles rather than by 
any direct enactment. In such a case you would 
expect him to obey the principle, and not avail 
himself of the permission. So in the present in- 
stance, were the permission proved, we, as moral 
creatures of God, would be bound by the principles 
which controlled it. 

But if no such permission was ever given, if, on 
the question of right, the New Testament has never 
uttered an approving syllable, then we are left 
entirely to the direction of the principle ; and what 
this principle is I have endeavored to show. 

But why was this mode of teaching adopted ? 
This question must be reserved for the next letter. 

I am, my dear brother, yours with every senti- 
ment of affection. 

The Author of the Moral Science. 



LETTER VII. 

TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

In my last letter I endeavored to illustrate the 
manner in which I suppose the New Testament to 
have prohibited the existence of domestic slavery. 
It is not by any precept forbidding it, but by the 
inculcation of such truths respecting the charac- 
ter, the value, and the responsibility of man, and 



DR. wayland's letters. 95 

his relation to his fellow-man and to his Maker, as y 
are utterly inconsistent with the institution. The ^ 
next question which naturally occurs is this, why 
was this mode of expressing the divine will adopt- 
ed? This inquiry I propose to consider in the 
present letter. I fear that this correspondence is 
becoming wearisome by its length, and shall, there- 
fore, in the remarks that follow, study the utmost 
brevity. 

You will perceive at once, that I am by no 
means obliged to reply to this inquiry. If such is 
proved to have been the method chosen by Om- 
niscient Wisdom, we all concede that it must have 
been chosen for the best possible reason. The 
fact is all that, we need be anxious to discover. 
Nevertheless, if we are able to show probable 
reasons for the course adopted by inspiration, it 
may anticipate various objections that might other- 
wise suo-CTest themselves. 

I remark then in the first place ; this mode of 
teaching is, in all respects, conformable to that uni- 
versally adopted by the Saviour and his apostles. 
In the words of Archbishop Whately,* •' It was no 
part of the scheme of the gospel revelation to lay 
down any thing approaching to a complete system 
oi moral 'precefpts — to enumerate every thing that 
is enjoined or forbidden by our religion, nor again 
to give a detailed general description of Christian 
duty — or to delineate, after the manner of sys- 

* Whately's Essays, vol. 2, p. 263: London, 1833. See 
this whole subject treated in a masterly manner in the essay 
on " the mode of conveying moral precepts in the New Tes- 
tament." Like every thing else from the pen of this great 
and good man, this essay is full of the " seeds of things." 



96 DR. wayland's letters. 

tematic ethical writers, each separate hahit of virtue 
or vice. New and higher motives were implanted, 
a more exalted and perfect example was proposed 
for imitation, a loftier standard of morality was 
established, rewards more glorious and punish- 
ments more appalling were held out, and super- 
natural aid was bestowed, and the Christian, with 
these incentives and advantages, is left to apply 
for himself in each case, the principles of the gos- 
pel. He is left to act at his own discretion, accord- 
ing to the dictates of his conscience ; to cultivate 
Christian dispositions, and thus become a law unto 
himself." Nay, still farther, care was taken in 
the revelation of the New Testament, to guard the 
disciple of Christ against expecting a system of pre- 
cise moral enactments. For this reason, the pre- 
cepts which are given are sometimes contradictory, 
as when we are commanded to " let our light shine 
before men," and also, " not to let our left hand 
know what our right hand doeth." Sometimes the 
literal precept was extravagant and irrational, as 
when v/e are commanded " to pluck out a right 
eye," or "cut off a right hand." Sometimes the 
precept was in itself insignificant, as when we are 
told " to wash each other's feet." In all these and 
similar cases, it is plain that we are taught to dis- 
regard the precept itself; and looking beyond it, to 
adopt as the rule of our universal conduct, the 
principle which it is evidently intended to incul- 
cate. If any one has any doubts on the mode of 
New Testament instruction in this respect, I beg 
him to read the essay to which I have referred. 

I think it must appear obvious to every reflect- 
ing mind, that this is the only method in which a 



DR. wayland's letters. 97 

universal revelation, which should possess any 
moral stringency, could have been given, for all 
coming time. A simple precept, or prohibition, is 
of all things the easiest to be evaded. Lord Eldon 
used to say, that " no man in England could con- \^ 
struct an act of Parliament through which he 
could not drive a coach and four." We find this 
to have been illustrated by the case of the Jews in 
the time of our Saviour. The Pharisees, who 
prided themselves on their strict obedience to the 
letter^ violated the s'pirit of every precept of the 
Mosaic code. Besides, suppose the New Testa- 
ment had been intended to give us a system of 
precepts, there were but two courses which could 
have been adopted. The first would have been to 
forbid merely every wrong practice of that 'particu- 
lar time, the second to go forward into futurity and 
forbid every wrong practice that could ever after- 
wards arise. If the first mode had been adopted, 
every wrong practice that might in after ages 
arise would have been unprovided for, and of 
course unforbidden. If the second had been adopt- 
ed, the New Testament would have formed a li- 
brary in itself more voluminous than the laws of 
the realm of Great Britain. Both of these courses 
would have been manifestly absurd. The only 
remaining scheme that could be devised is, to pre- 
sent the great principles of moral duty, to reveal 
the great moral facts on which all duty must rest, 
the unchangeable relations in which moral crea- 
tures stand to each other, and to God, and without 
any precepts in each particular case, to leave the 
course of conduct to be determined by the con- 
science of every individual acting in the presence 

9 



98 DR. wayland's letters. 

of the all-seeing Deity. To illustrate the practi- 
cal difference of these modes of teaching, I ask, is 
there any danger that either you or I, acting in the 
spirit of the principle which teaches us, thou shalt 
love thy neighbor as thyself, would violate any 
law of the United States ? We have lived many 
years without even knowing what these laws are, 
and yet have never violated one of them. But yet 
the precepts which are intended to guard against 
such a violation are the study of a lifetime ; and 
the number of them is annually increasing, and 
must increase, in order to render our rights in any 
manner secure. 

Now such being the mode in which it was neces- 
sary to make known to men the moral laws of the 
New Testament, it is plain that to this mode, the 
instruction in respect to slavery must be subjected. 
If this form of wronsr had been singled out from 
all the others, and had alone been treated precep- 
tively, the whole system would have been vitiated. 
We should have been authorized to inquire why 
were not similar precepts in other cases delivered ; 
and if they were not delivered, we should have 
been at liberty to conclude that they were inten- 
tionally omitted, and that the acts which they would 
have forbidden are innocent. I cannot but consi- 
der this as a sufficient reason why no precept should 
be given on the subject of slavery, and why, like 
almost every other, certainly like every other social 
wrong, it should be left to the results of the incul- 
cation of a moral principle. 

There seem to me other reasons also why this 
mode of instruction should be adopted in this par- 
ticular instance. 



DR. wayland's letters. 99 

1. The reason of the duty to abolish slavery is 
found in the moral relations and responsibilities of 
a human being. But these moral relations and 
responsibilities were at this time wholly unknown. 
This I have attempted to illustrate in my last letter. 
It was certainly reasonable to postpone the incul- 
cation of the duty until the truths were promulgated 
on which this duty loas founded. The fundamental 
truths of the Declaration of Independence had, dur- 
ing the previous struggles of our colonial history, 
become fully known and universally acknowledged. 
On the ground of these, our Fathers declared our 
connection with the mother country severed. But 
of what use would have been such a declaration 
if these principles had never been either promul- 
gated or understood. Every one sees that such 
an act would have been inoperative and absurd. 

2. Again, slavery, at the time of our Saviour 
and his Apostles, was a social evil. It was estab- 
lished by law. The whole community enforced the 
law on every individual. The master could only 
manumit such a portion of his slaves as the law 
permitted. He could go to no other country and 
there set them free, for the whole civilized world 
was under the same dominion. If he set them free 
contrary to law, they were liable to be reduced 
again to a worse bondage than that from which he 
had delivered them. Hence it was manifest that 
the system could only be abolished by a change in 
the public mind, by inculcating those principles 
which would show the whole community that it 
was wrong, and induce them, from a general con- 
viction of its moral evil, to abandon it. 

I can also perceive other practical benefits of 



100 

great importance which would necessarily attend 
this method of abolishing slavery. To have incul- 
cated the right of the slave to freedom, and the 
duty of the master to liberate him, absolutely and 
immediately, while both were ignorant of the 
principles on which the precept was founded, and 
wholly uninfluenced by these principles, must have 
led to a universal social war. The masters would 
not have obeyed the precept, the slaves would have 
risen in rebellion. This attempt had been frequently 
made before, and had been put down by horrible 
bloodshed. There is no reason to suppose that the 
same result would not have taken place again. 
Myriads of unarmed and ignorant slaves could 
never have stood the shock of the Roman legions, 
commanded by able generals and supported by the 
wealth of the empire. Hence, to have adopted the 
method of abolishing slavery by precept, would 
have defeated the great object in view, and ren- 
dered the condition of the slave worse than before. 
Such, in all cases except in insular situations, has 
been the result of servile insurrections. 

The result of the abolition of slavery by the 
inculcation of the principles of the Gospel would 
be the reverse of all this. By teaching the master 
his own accountability, by instilling into his mind 
the mild and humanizing truths of Christianity ; 
by showing him the folly of sensuality and luxury, 
and the happiness derived from industry, frugality, 
and benevolence, it would prepare him of his own 
accord to liberate his slave, and to use all his influ- 
ence towards the abolition of those laws by which 
slavery was sustained. By teaching the slave his 
value and his responsibility as a man, and subject- 



DR. wayland's letters. 101 

ing his passions and appetites to the laws of Chris- 
tianity, and thus raising him to his true rank as 
an intellectual and moral being, it would prepare 
him for the freedom to which he was entitled, and 
render the liberty which it conferred a blessing to 
him as well as to the State of which he now, for 
the first time, formed a part. 

Such was, in fact, the result of the promulgation 
of Christianity upon the Roman Empire. As the 
gospel spread from city to city, and began to exert 
an influence upon the public mind, the laws respect- 
ing slavery were gradually relaxed, and every 
change in legislation was, in this respect, a change 
for the better. This tendency continued and in- 
creased until, throughout the whole empire, slavery 
was at last abolished. And, by the admission of 
all, this abolition was purely the result of the 
teachings of the gospel. And still more, it was 
first commenced, and its progress was accelerated 
by the noble example of the Christian Church. To 
liberate their fellow-men from servitude was, very 
early in the history of Christianity, deemed to be 
one of the most urgent duties of the disciples of 
Christ. Clemens, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, 
remarks : " We have known many among our- 
selves who have delivered themselves into bonds 
and slavery that they might restore others to their 
liberty. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, expended his 
whole estate, and then sold himself, in order to 
accomplish the same object. Cyprian sent to the 
Bishop of Numidia 2,500 crowns, in order to re- 
deem some captives. Socrates, the historian, says 
that after the Romans had taken 7,000 Persian 
captives, Acacius, Bishop of Amida, melted down 

9* 



102 • DK. ^vayland's letters. 

the gold and silver plate of his church with which 
he redeemed the captives. Ambrose, of Milan, 
did the same in respect to the furniture of his 
church. It was the only case in which the impe- 
rial constitutions allowed plate to be sold." These 
facts sufiiciently illustrate the manner in which the 
early church interpreted the teaching of the gospel 
respecting slavery, and also the effect which this 
teaching had upon their practice.* 

And thus we see that the very reason why this 
mode of teaching was adopted, was to accomplish 
the universal aholition of slavery. A precept could 
not have done this, for, in the changing condition 
of human society, the means would have easily 
been devised for eluding it. But by teaching truths, 
the very truths in which Christianity consisted, ut- 
terly and absolutely opposed to slavery, truths 
founded in the essential moral relations of crea- 
tures to their Creator, it was rendered certain that 
wherever Christianity was understood and obeyed, 
this institution must cease to exist. Thus the prin- 
ciples of the gospel have once abolished slavery 
from the face of the earth. They have almost 
done it for the second time. May we not hope that 
the work will be speedily accomplished, and accom- 
plished forever. 

And here I think that the New Testament, hav- 
ing adopted this as the correct and only universal 
mode of accomplishing this object, is perfectly 
consistent with itself, in giving no precept to Chris- 
tian masters. The gospel is a universal rule. It 
prescribes no moral duty for one man, and excuses 

* Biblical Repository, before cited, Oct. 1835. Art. Ro- 
man Slavery. 



DR. wayland's letters. 103 

from that duty another, when both are under the 
same circumstances. If it prescribed the duty of 
manumitting their slaves to Christian masters, it 
must have prescribed it to all masters ; that is, it 
must have adopted that other mode of teaching, by 
precept, instead of teaching hy principle. It there- 
fore left the whole matter to the operation of prin- 
ciple, and the manner in which that principle was 
acted upon by Christians, I have already illustrated. 
In all this I see nothing but the benevolence and 
long-mindedness of the Deity. God treats his in- 
telligent creatures according to the nature which 
he has given them. He reveals his will. He 
promulgates truth of universal efficacy, but fre- 
quently allows long time to elapse before the effect 
of it appears, in order that that effect may be the 
more radical and comprehensive. 

These seem to me to be sufficient reasons for 
the mode of teaching which the New Testament 
has adopted in respect to slavery. On this subject 
I do not see that there can be any question be- 
tween us. I have always remarked that our 
Southern brethren are specially opposed to imme- 
diate abolition. They consider it absurd, ruinous, 
inhuman, and destructive to society itself. They 
also declare that if abolition is ever to be accom- 
plished, it must be accomplished by means of the 
inculcation of principles which naturally lead to 
it ; and not by force of arms, or by the passage of 
arbitrary acts. It would, therefore, seem pecu- 
liarly unreasonable for them to assert that there is 
only one method in which the abolition of slavery 
could, with benevolence to all parties, be accom- 
plished, and then to assert that the gospel could 



104 DR. wayland's letters. 

not certainly mean to abolish it, because it had 
adopted this very method. 

Before leaving this part of the subject, it may 
be well to consider very briefly in what manner 
the principles which we have been discussing, 
bear upon the question of slavery in our Southern 
States. 

In the first place, if slavery be inconsistent with 
the principles of the Gospel, it is wrong, and God 
requires us to abandon it. And besides, God does 
not require us to abandon it simply because we 
are Christians, but because we are men, his crea- 
tures, and because it is at variance with the moral 
law under which we are created. If it be asked, 
when ? I ask again, when is it our duty to obey 
God ? Is it not our duty always and everywhere, 
semper et ubiqiie, as soon as we hear his com- 
mandments ? A reason that would be sufficient 
for delaying to obey God for a moment, would be 
a sufficient reason for disobeying him forever. If 
the physical act to which his commandment tends, 
be in any respect out of our power, we are to act 
honestly and in his fear, from the principle of obe- 
dience, and remove, as far as possible, every ob- 
stacle that exists to perfect obedience to the com- 
mandment. 

2. What arc we to learn from the manner \</\\\c\\. 
the gospel adopted to accomplish the abolition of 
slavery ? I answer, we are at liberty to use the 
same manner, in just so far as our circumstances 
and those of the early Christians correspond. 

The reason for the gradual abolition of slavery 
under the gospel, was that all parties were igno- 
rant of the principles on which the rights, and 



DR. wayland's letters. 105 

duties, and responsibilities of men were founded. 
The world then knew of nothing better than poly, 
theism, and all the absurdities of heathen mytholo- 
gy. It was necessary that this darkness should 
be dispelled, before the moral light could shine 
upon slavery, or upon almost any other wrong. 
Slavery was then universal, and there existed small 
opportunity to know its moral evil in the sight of 
God. The case with us is different. We have 
from our earliest youth been instructed in the gos- 
pel of our salvation. The fundamental principles 
on which our duty rests, are as familiar to us as 
household words ; we have only to apply them to 
our particular case, and the will of God in respect 
to us cannot be mistaken. Nay, we, in our Decla- 
ration of Independence, have already acknowledged 
the very principles now in question. We have 
seen slavery abolished all around us. There is, 
therefore, no need for delay for the purpose of in- 
culcating on us the principles on which our duty 
rests. 

Again, slavery was then, and it is now, a social 
evil. It is established and maintained by the 
power of society, and it can be universally abol- 
ished only by legislation. The case was the same 
in the early ages of Christianity. There is, how- 
ever, this one remarkable difference. Then, the 
laws were nothing but the published will of a des- 
pot. The subject had no power to make or un- 
make them. It is by no means the same with us. 
We make our own laws. Every citizen who exer- 
cises the right of suffrage, is himself responsible 
for every law that is made, unless he has put forth 
his full constitutional power to prevent it. Hence, 



106 DR. wayland's letters. 

a grave responsibility rests upon every Christian 
citizen in respect to the laws by which he is gov- 
erned. If he favor, or if he do not constitutionally 
resist, laws at variance with the gospel which he 
professes, he is responsible to God for all the wrong 
which these laws create. 

In a word, I believe that slavery is forbidden in 
the Scriptures just as almost every other sin is 
forbidden ; that is, by the inculcation of moral prin- 
ciples which are utterly at variance with it. Is 
not this the almost universal method of the teach- 
ing of the New Testament ? Do you not, my 
brother, so interpret it ? When you attempt to 
teach men that they are sinners against God, do 
you enumerate the precepts which they have bro- 
ken, or do you set before them the character of 
God, and their universal relations to him ? If 
their conduct has been at variance with all these 
relations, does not their own conscience pronounce 
them guilty 1 The case is, as I esteem it, similar 
here. God has thus taught us that slavery is 
wrong, a violation of his most holy law. And if 
so, it is our duty at once to abandon it. 

The manner in which this is to be done, may, I 
apprehend, vary with our circumstances. Such, 
I think, we may believe to be the teaching by ex- 
ample of the New Testament. A man, I sup- 
pose, delivers himself from the guilt of slavery at 
the very moment when he, in the sight of God, 
renounces all right in his fellow-man, and acts in 
sincerity of heart, in the presence of his Judge, in 
conformity with that renunciation. The manner 
of his acting out this renunciation may, however, 
vary with the circumstances of the case. All that 



DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 107 

the gospel requires is, that, unbiased by interest, 
unawed by persecution, he carry out the principles 
of the gospel, wheresoever they may lead him. 
He is to do this as an individual, with respect to 
those whom he now believes that he has unjustly 
held in bondage. He is to do it in respect to the 
community whom, by his former precept and ex- 
ample, he has either led into or confirmed in error. 
He is to bear his testimony to the truth, whatever 
sacrifice it may cost him. So soon as the Church 
of Christ acts upon these principles, our land will 
be freed from the sin of slavery. 'Until she do this, 
the stain of blood-guiltiness (and if it be a sin at 
all, it is a sin of appalling magnitude) is found on 
her garments. 

I think I can illustrate my view of this subject 
by a familiar example. I am obliged to take a 
case which we all know to be sinful, for the sake 
of the illustration. I do not intend to do it offen- 
sively. Suppose a man to have been guilty of 
great dishonesty. He holds in his hands the prop- 
erty of several of his fellow-men, of which he has 
obtained possession unjustly. He repents of his 
sin, and wishes to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. 
I tell him that he has offended God and injured his 
neighbor — that he has not a right to hold a farthing 
or a fraction of all this part of his possession. The 
moment he repents of this sin, and in the sight of 
God renounces all right to this property, and holds 
it only for the good of the rightful owner, he ceases 
to be guilty of the sin of dishonesty. But to carry 
out this principle may be a work of time and labor. 
One whom he has defrauded may be his next door 
neighbor. To him he will make restitution imme- 



108 DR. wayland's letters. 

diately. Another may live a thousand miles off. 
To him he will restore his own in such a manner 
as will most directly and safely accomplish the 
object. The property of another may have been 
inherited by heirs ; to these he will restore their 
portion according to the principles of law and jus- 
tice. He may thus be obliged to hold this posses- 
sion in his own hands for some time after he has re- 
nounced all right to hold it as his own. He holds it, 
however, not for his own benefit, but merely for the 
sake of being the better enabled to do justice. He 
is innocent of dishonesty in just so far as he thus 
holds it. If he allow any unnecessary delay to 
intervene — if because the rightful owner does not 
know of his loss — if, because he cannot restore it 
to-day, he resolve that he will not restore it at all 
— or if, because he finds some difficulty in carry- 
ing out the principle of right, he quietly relapse 
into his former state, and uses as his own, and for 
his own benefit, what on the eternal principles of 
justice belongs to another — in the sight of God 
and man he is guilty of dishonesty. 

Such, my dear brother, seem to me some of the 
reasons why the Scriptures selected this mode of 
teaching us our duty on this subject, and of the 
bearing which this mode of teaching should have 
upon our present practice. 

I am, my dear brother, yours, with every senti- 
ment of Christian affection, 

The Author of the Moral Science. 



DR. wayland's letters. 109 

LETTER VIII. 
TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

In my last letter I attempted to exhibit the rea- 
sons why the inspired writers of the New Testa- . 
ment preferred to teach the will of God on they 
subject of slavery by principle rather than by pre- 
cept ; and to show that, such being the revealed 
will of God, a most solemn and imperative duty is 
imposed upon the disciples of Christ in the slave- 
holding States. I shall ask your attention to a few 
additional remarks on the latter of these topics, 
and with these shall close my part of this corre- 
spondence, already, I fear, too much protracted. 

I remarked in the preceding letter, that if the 
views which I have taken of this subject be cor- 
rect, it is the immediate duty of every slaveholder 
at once to free himself from the guilt of slavery, 
and, also, by the use of his whole constitutional 
power, to free his country from this guilt. 

In pursuing this subject somewhat farther, I 
would suggest that this, as it seems to me, would 
be the duty of every man, espeeially of every dis- 
ciple of Christ, were slavery nothing more than 
you have represented it to be — the " obliging 
another to labor for our benefit without his contract 
or consent." By our very constitution as men, 
we are under solemn and unchangeable obligations 
to respect the rights of the meanest thing that lives. 
Every other man is created with the same rights 

10 



110 DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 

as ourselves ; and, most of all, he is created with 
the inalienable " right to life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness." To deprive him of these as 
a punishment for crime, while yet he continues 
under the protection of law, is one of the severest 
inflictions that the criminal code of any human 
government can recognise, even when the punish- 
ment is confined to his own person. But what 
crime can be conceived of so atrocious as to jus- 
tify the consigning of a human being to servitude 
for life, and the extension of this punishment to his 
posterity down to the remotest generations ? Were 
this the penalty even for murder, every man in 
the civilized world would rise up in indignation at 
its enormous injustice. How great, then, must be 
the injustice when such a doom is inflicted, not 
upon criminals convicted of atrocious wickedness, 
but upon men, women, and children, who have 
never been accused of any crime, and against 
whom there is not even the suspicion of guilt! 
Can any moral creature of God be innocent that 
inflicts such punishment upon his fellow-creatures, 
who have never done any thing to deserve it ? I 
ask, what have those poor, defenceless, and unde- 
fended black men done, that they and their chil- 
dren forever should thus be consigned to hopeless 
servitude ? If they have done nothing, how can 
we be innocent if we inflict such punishment upon 
them ? But yet more. The spirit of Christianity, 
if I understand it aright, teaches us not merely the 
principles of pure and elevated justice, but those 
of the most tender and all-embracing charity. 
The Captain of our salvation was anointed " to 
preach the gospel to the poor ; he was sent to heal 



DR. wayland's letters. Ill 

the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the 
captives, and recovering of sight to the blind ; to 
set at liberty them that are bruised." " He is the 
comforter of them that are cast down." Can the 
disciple of such a Saviour, then, inflict the least, 
how much less the greatest, of punishments upon a 
human being who has never been guilty of a crime 
that should deserve it ? 

All this, as it seems to me, must then be the 
duty of every man, especially of every disciple 
of Christ, even were slavery such as you have 
defined it ; that is, if the slave were merely held 
to compulsory labor, but fed and clothed with con- 
siderate care — if he were as perfectly as ourselves 
under the protection of law — if the laws affecting 
him were made with the greatest respect for his 
condition and helplessness — if no other inconveni- 
ence were imposed upon him except merely what 
might be necessary to ensure his faithful labor — 
and if, in the division of the profits of his labor, a 
cautious love of right awarded to him his just por- 
tion of the joint proceeds of labor and capital. 

But if, under such circumstances as these, it 
would be our duty to free ourselves from the re- 
sponsibility which attaches to such an act of in- 
justice, how much more imperative must be this 
duty, if all these modifying circumstances are to- 
tally reversed ! 

What if these human beings, thus punished 
without crime, or the suspicion of it, are placed 
wholly icithout the protection of law, and are sur- 
rendered up by society to the wnll of their masters, 
absolutely, without the power of resistance or the 
hope of redress, to be dealt with as the master 



112 DR. wayland's letters. 

shall choose ? You and I know full well the 
character which the word of God attributes to 
fallen human nature. We have all been taught 
how insufferably arrogant and cruel the mind of 
man becomes, when intrusted with irresponsible 
power. What, then, 'must be the condition of a 
human being left without remedy to the exercise 
of this power ? I know it may be said that there 
are laws for the protection of slaves. But I ask, 
is there one of these laws which is not a blot upon 
a statute-book, if we believe the creatures to whom 
they refer to be human heings like ourselves ? But 
these laws, bad as they are, seem to me merely a 
mockery. Of what use is a law, when the testi- 
mony of the parties liable to injury can never be 
taken in evidence ? Who need fear punishment, 
when the only witnesses to his wrong are univer- 
sally forbidden to testify ? If it be said that the 
rights of the slaves are protected by public opin- 
ion, I ask, when has public opinion defined these 
rights ? and who is the man that has dared to give 
utterance to this public opinion ? Nay, more, I 
cannot but consider the laws on this subject a tol- 
erably fair index of the general sentiment of the 
community. If the public opinion had decided 
that the slaves had rights, which it was the duty 
of society to protect, I cannot but believe that a 
great and radical change would long since have 
been effected in the statute-books of our Southern 
States. 

It is one of the fundamental principles of society, 
that no human being shall lay an unkind hand 
upon another, whatever may be their difference in 
rank. If wrong have been done, society ascertains 



113 

the facts, and by the trial of our peers, according 
to equitable law, inflicts the punishment. What, 
then, must be the condition of those who, men, 
women, and children, are exposed to the lash with- 
out limit and without mercy, at the will of a single 
individual ; and who are liable thus to suffer from 
weakness, infirmity, nay, for the conscientious 
obedience to God, as well as for fault ? 

To every innocent woman, her personal honor 
is instinctively dearer than life. What, then, 
must be the condition of women who are held to be 
the property of the owner " to all intents and pur- 
poses," and who are, without redress, subjected to 
his will ? What must be their condition, when the 
use of them for the purposes of profligacy is de- 
fended as a social convenience and pecuniary ad- 
vantage ? What must be the domestic condition 
of those who by law are not permitted to form 
marriage contracts, and who, if such contracts are 
formed, are liable to be separated forever at the 
pecuniary convenience of another ? 

It seems to me an elementary principle of jus- 
tice, that when capital and labor combine in the 
creation of product, the proceeds of such creation 
should be divided by some equitable law in which 
the rights of both parties shall be fairly repre- 
sented. But what must be the condition of those 
who have no voice whatever in this distribution of 
their products, but are obliged to submit to just 
such a division as the caprice or pecuniary inter- 
est of the other party shall appoint ? 

It seems to me that the soul is the most important 
part of a human being, and that its capacity for 
improvement is one of the most precious gifts 

10* 



114 DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 

bestowed upon it by its Creator. It seems to me 
that the liberty to read, reflect, know, to develop 
its powers, and look back upon the past, and for- 
ward to the future, is an inalienable right ; and 
that the exercise of it is a most precious solace to 
those who are obliged to devote themselves for a 
great part of the time to physical labor. What, 
then, must be the condition of those who are looked 
upon by law and by public opinion as merely 
physical beings, for whose intellectual happiness 
no provision whatever is made ; nay, more, who 
are by the severest penalties prohibited from im- 
bibing even the rudiments of instruction ? What 
must be their condition, when, having been by this 
prohibition rendered ignorant, stupid, and sensual, 
this very ignorance, stupidity, and sensuality is 
pleaded as a reason why they should be held down 
to this degradation forever ? 

Again, God has made to us a revelation of his 
will, and the knowledge of that revelation is es- 
sential to our eternal salvation. Every human 
heing has a right to that knowledge ; for the message 
which it contains was addressed directly to him. 
What must be the condition of those who are 
wholly, by the will of another, deprived of that 
knowledge — who are shut out by law from obtain- 
ing it, and who are never permitted to open their 
eyes upon those oracles which are able to make us 
wise unto salvation, through the faith that is in 
Christ Jesus ? I know it may be said that they are 
permitted to attend church with their masters. I 
know they may be so permitted. They are al- 
lowed to hear us tell what, as we affirm, God says 
to them ; but they are not permitted to hear what 



DR. Wi\YLAND's LETTERS. 115 

God says to them liimself. I confess myself utterly 
at a loss to conceive how a human being can as- 
sume the responsibility of thus interfering between 
an immortal soul and its Maker. 

But suppose that, by means of this glimmering 
light, a human being should obtain some view of 
his relations to God, and become a real disciple of 
Christ. He is then introduced to a new class of 
duties — duties which he owes to his family, to his 
fellow-creatures, and to God. He must pray — he 
must teach others the way of salvation — he must 
obey God rather than man — he must give all dili- 
gence to make his callino; and election sure. He 

... 
needs time, opportunity, social privileges, and the 

communion of saints, to accomplish all this. But 
what must be the condition of him who is sub- 
ject in every respect to the will of another, a will 
at all times liable to be moved by passion, caprice, 
or the insane love of gold 1 What is his condi- 
tion whose private devotion may at any time be 
interrupted by the sound of the lash, and whose 
social meeting for prayer may be made an occasion 
for the infliction of a punishment which a humane 
man cannot think of without shuddering ? 

If, then, it would be our duty at once to free 
ourselves from the guilt of slavery, and labor with 
our whole power to free our country from it, were 
slavery merely involuntary servitude guarded by 
all the power of merciful and vigilant legislation, 
hoAV much more is it our duty when it is accom- 
panied by such intense aggravations as I have 
here suggested ! If nearly three millions of our 
fellow-men are thus degraded from their position 
as moral, and social, and intellectual creatures. 



. 16 DR. wayland's letters. 

and made the mere instruments of pecmiiary gain, 
can any man, aware of his responsibilities as a 
moral creature of God, look upon it v/ith indiffer- 
ence ? But yet more. A considerable portion of 
these sutferers are our Christian brethren, par- 
takers of the same inheritance, members of the 
body of Christ, whom he so loved that he gave up 
himself for their redemption. Jesus Christ is the 
comforter of those that are cast down ; and can 
we, who are his disciples, trample the cast down 
yet deeper in the dust ? He has said, " Come 
unto me, all ye who are weary and heavy laden, 
and I will give you rest ;" and can we lay yet 
heavier burdens on the weary and heavy laden, 
whom he thus receives into his bosom ? Jesus 
Christ has said, " It is impossible but that ofFcRces 
should come, but wo to the man by whom they 
come. It were better for him that a millstone 
were han;Ted about his neck and he cast into the 
sea, than that he should offend one of these little 
ones." How, then, can we stand before him, after 
having inflicted on these little ones these aggra- 
vated wrongs ? Jesus Christ has taught us that 
the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick, the 
prisoner, the stranger, are his representatives on 
earth, and. that our love to him is to be measured 
by the universal sympalhy which we extend to 
every form of human distress ; and he adds, " In- 
asmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these 
my brethren, ye do it not unto me." The special 
representative of Christ in this country seems to 
me to be the oppressed, and I fear I must add the 
frequently lacerated. Christian slave. Flow shall we 
stand before the Saviour, if we make no effort to com- 



DR. wayland's letters. 117 

fort and deliver this slave — much less if we count 
ourselves among the number of his oppressors ? 

To place this subject in what seems to me a cor- 
rect point of view, let us imagine a very possible 
case. We have sent the gospel to the Karens, and 
thousands of them are, we hope, partakers of the 
faith in Christ Jesus. Suppose that they, hearing 
that there are in the United States millions of per- 
sons in great moral destitution, should send a mis- 
sionary and his wife from their own number, to 
labor among the slaves in the Southern States, 
They are not of the Circassian race. They are 
of darker skin than many of our slaves. The race 
is as weak in intellect, and as rude in knowledge 
as the native Africans. Precisely, so far as I can 
see, the same reasons exist for makinor slaves of 
the one race as of the other. Let these missiona- 
ries land on our shores. They can show no cer- 
tificate of freedom, written either on paper or 
parchment, as the law directs. On the first day 
of their arrival they might, for aught I can see, be 
arrested, lodged in jail, and after the legal time 
had elapsed, be legally sold for payment of jail- 
fees to different owners, separated from each other 
for life, and their children, if they had any, con- 
signed to endless bondage. But suppose them to 
escape this peril. They go among the destitute 
and open schools, such as we have established 
among them, for the purpose of teaching these im- 
mortal Africans to read the Word of God. They 
are immediately arrested and fined for each offence, 
it may be, five hundred dollars. In default of pay- 
ment they are again sold to endless bondage, and 
separated from each other for life. But suppose 



118 

them to escape this danger. They attempt to preacli 
Christ crucified. There are more than five slaves 
present, and there are not present five slaveholders. 
They are fined again, and the same sale and end- 
less separation takes place. They are made slaves 
for life. They attempt in despite of the fear of 
men to preach Christ crucified. They are whip- 
ped. They do it again, they are whipped again. 
And if they persevere, they would, as it seems to 
me, soon perish under the overseer's lash. They 
ask, with their Master, " Why, what evil have 
we done ?" They are told that all this is done 
because it is for the pecuniary advantage of the 
masters. It is done on a calm calculation of dol- 
lars and cents. They learn also that all this sys- 
tem is established either by, or with the consent of, 
their own brethren in Christ ; the very men 'through 
whose contributions they had been taught the way 
of life, convinced of their duty to love all men as 
themselves, and to preach the gospel to every crea- 
ture. Would they believe that their persecutors 
were the disciples of that Jesus of whom they had 
read in the Evangelists and the Epistles? Would 
Christians at the South seem to them to be acting 
under the eye of that God who cannot bear the ap- 
pearance of evil, and who has said, ye cannot serve 
God and mammon ? Could the blessed Saviour 
look with indifference upon such wrongs inflicted 
upon these his little ones ? And is not this, in all 
essential particulars, an illustration of the case of 
all the colored Christians in the Southern States ? 
It is with ffreat unwillingness that I have alluded 
to facts which I know must give pain to many breth- 
ren whom I love and esteem. I love and esteem 



DR. WAYLAND S LETTERS. 119 

them as brethren. But is not the slave, ignorant, 
degraded, whom no man cares for, my brother as 
truly as his intelligent and accomplished master ? 
Is not the one as much as the other a member of 
the body of Christ ? Does not the gospel teach me . 
especially to " reinember those that are in honds as 
hound loith them .?" Can I do otherwise than set 
before my brethren v/hat I consider to be truth, 
truth so important that the happiness of millions, 
for time and eternity, both free and enslaved, seems 
to me to be most vitally involved in it ? I have 
already made every distinction that can be de- 
manded between the different classes of those who 
hold their fellow-men in bondage. This, however, 
does not affect the system, and the system is the re- 
sult of the action of the whole community. The 
whole community therefore is responsible for it ; 
and for this reason, how painful soever it may be, 
it must be spoken of as it is. 

But it will be said, the abolition of slavery will 
ruin the Southern States. Should it be so, as you ^ 
have well remarked, if it be wrong, it ought to be 
abandoned. But I cannot see how this is to happen. 
The soil will neither become diminished in quantity, 
nor inferior in fertility. The number of laborers 
will be the same. The only difference that I can 
perceive would be, that the laborer would then work 
in conformity with the conditions which God has 
appointed, whereas lie now works at variance with 
them ; in the one case we should be attempting to 
accumulate property under the blessing of God, 
whereas now we are attempting to do it under his 
special and peculiar malediction. How can we 
expect to prosper, when there is not, as Mr. Jeffer- 



120 DR. wayland's letters. 

son remarks, '' an attribute of the Almighty that 
can be appealed to in our favor?" I would gladly 
discuss this subject as a question in Political Econ- 
omy ; but this is not the place for it, and I must 
with these few remarks pass it by. 

But it may be said, what can we do ? Men of 
all classes are so excitable on this subject, that they 
will not allow us to utter a word in opposition to 
slavery. To do this would be to destroy our in- 
fluence, endanger our property, ruin our reputation, 
and it may be, to peril our lives. You, my dear 
brother, would not make this objection, but you 
know it would be made. I fear that the objection 
is well-founded. It is in accordance with the gen- 
eral law, that those who enslave the bodies of oth- 
ers, become in turn the slaves of their own passions. 
But what if it be so ? Are we in such a case to 
listen to the teachings of a craven and wicked ex- 
pediency ? If this be a sin against God, ought we 
to hesitate to testify against it, because our fellow- 
men will persecute us ? Ought we not rather to 
adopt the language of the Hebrews, " Our God 
whom we serve is able to deliver us, and he will 
deliver us out of thy hand, O king ; but if not, be 
it known unto thee we will not serve thy gods, nor 
worship the golden image which thou hast set up." 
I do believe that even now it is the duty of every 
Christian in the slaveholding States to bear his tes- 
timony against this enormous wrong, and at once 
to free himself from the guilt of participation in it. 
I fear that those who first set this glorious example 
would suffer persecution. Their names would be 
cast out as evil. They would be branded with 
every epithet of reproach. But they would be 



DR. wayland's letters. 121 

suffering to rescue millions of men from aggravated 
oppression, and to deliver their country from a sin 
that must bring upon it the selectest judgments of 
a God that loveth justice. They would not, how- 
ever, long suffer alone. Thousands of slaveholders 
who now groan under the weight of this infliction, 
and are praying for deliverance from it, would soon 
enlist under their standard. The church univer- 
sal would without ceasing supplicate the throne of 
grace in their behalf. Every attribute of the Most 
High would be put forth to ensure their success. 
He that ever liveth to intercede for us would offer 
up their prayers with much incense, and would 
strengthen their hearts by infusing into them a 
double portion of his spirit. God himself will un- 
dertake for them, and they will assuredly triumph, 
and the glory of a more resplendent moral victory 
than has been achieved since the day when He as- 
cended up on high and led captivity captive, will 
encircle the diadem of the Redeemer. 

In the remarks which I have made, you will 
perceive that I have offered no suggestion as to the 
manner in which emancipation, whenever it occurs, 
shall be conducted. This is altogether a practical 
question, and requires for its solution not only 
genuine and disinterested philanthropy, but also 
great practical wisdom, large observation of the 
effects of social changes, and an intimate acquaint- 
ance with the habits, manners, and states of feeling 
of the South. To these I make no pretension, as I 
have no skill in managing affairs, and have never 
visited the Southern States. There is, however, 
knowledge of this kind in abundance with you. 
To your statesmen, and philanthropists, and Chris- 

11 



122 DR. wayland's letters. 

tians, I willingly leave it, in the full confidence that 
it can be done, done safely, and done to the incon- 
ceivable advantage of all the parties concerned. 

In the commencement of these letters I think 1 
mentioned that I wrote in behalf of no one but 
myself, and that no other individual whatever was 
in any manner implicated in any of the sentiments 
which I might utter. Such has been the case to 
the close. I believe it has not chanced that a 
single idea in these letters has been suggested to 
me by any other person. Yet I have reason to 
suppose, from several circumstances, that they ex- 
press the opinions, perhaps I might say the almost 
universal opinions, of Christians of every denomi- 
nation in the Northern States. They look upon 
slavery as a grievous wn'ong, and a wrong spe- 
cially at variance with the spirit and teachings of 
the gospel of Christ, a cruel injustice towards their 
fellow-men, and specially towards their brethren in 
the common fixith. It is not therefore remarkable 
that they feel strongly on such a subject. It is not 
to be wondered at that any real or even apparent 
connection with it, should give rise to conscientious 
scruples in the minds of fair, upright, and candid 
men. They may well be acquitted of the charge 
of unkindness or incendiarism, if they shrink from 
any act which might seem to imply that they con- 
sider slavery in any other light than as irrecon- 
cilably at variance with {he teachings of the gos- 
pel of Christ. Thus in our labor to propagate the 
religion of the Redeemer, we may surely without 
offence pause before we do any thing that could 
be construed into indifference to slavery, in the es- 
tablishment of churches among the heathen. It 



DR. wayland's letters. 123 

may here be proper for me. specially in connection 
with the office to which I was unwillingly chosen 
at the late Triennial Convention, to state my own 
views on this subject. I clo it without unkindness 
and without reserve. I am perfectly willing to 
have it understood, that whatever may be my view 
as expressed in my third letter of the connection 
between the holding of slaves, and profession of 
religion, in a state of society \vhere the institution 
has become long established, I never could, with- 
out doing violence to my conscience, do any thing 
towards the establishment in a heathen land of a 
church into which slavery could by any means 
find admittance. I believe that I should sin wil- 
fully against God, if I ever promulgated a slave- 
holding Christianity. I use the word without op- 
probrium, and merely to designate a fact. I know 
that this avowal is not necessary. But I prefer to 
make it, lest I should, under any circumstances, 
be accused of acting with duplicity. You, at 
least, will appreciate my motives, and will at once 
perceive that no other course of conduct could 
legitimateh^ flow from the sentiments which I pro- 
fess. And I do not see how Christians at the South 
can look upon the subject in any other light. I 
never found one who would be willing to introduce 
slavery into this country, were it not established ; 
nay, who would not consider such an act both 
wicked and unwise. And can a brother expect 
me to do in another country wliat he would not do 
in his own ; or can he expect me to take any step, 
which by the remotest legitimate consequence 
might lead to this result ? I am sure that every 
reflecting Christian must see that I could never do 
it, either in honor or with a <j:ood conscience. 



124 DR. wayland's letters. 

My task is ended. I have written in haste, and 
amid the pressure of other and imperative engage- 
ments. I have, however, long felt that I owed a 
debt of humanity and charity to my Christian 
brethren at the Soutli, both free and enslaved. I 
have desired to bear my testimony in favor of 
those whom I believed to be suffering the greatest 
injustice, and to bear it in the presence of those, 
many of whom I believe, through erroneous views 
of the teachings of the Scriptures, to be responsi- 
ble to God for that injustice. I rejoice that I have 
had the opportunity of addressing them through 
one who, whatever he might think of my argu- 
ment, will do justice to my motives. If, my dear 
brother, in aught that I have written, I have be- 
trayed a spirit at variance with the kindness of the 
gospel ; if a word that I have uttered has been 
designed to give the slightest pain to a Christian 
brother, you will believe me when I say it is not 
merely unintentional, but directly in opposition to 
my most thoughtful and vigilant intention. I have 
desired to address the understandinjT and conscience 
of my brethren, and to avoid every allusion that 
would even remotely tend to deter them from ex- 
amining this subject in the light of what seems to 
me to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. To 
them I commit what I have written, with the hum- 
ble prayer that God may use it to advance the 
cause of righteousness and mercy. 

Now the God of peace that brought again from 
the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of 
the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting co- 
venant, make us perfect in every good work to do 
his will, working in us that which is well pleasing 



DR. wayland's letters. 125 

in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be 
glory forever and ever. Amen. 

I am, my dear brother, yours, with every senti- 
ment of Christian affection, 

The Author of the Moral Science. 
11* 



DR. FULLER'S LETTERS. 

LETTER L 

TO THE REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

I have been compelled for several weeks to 
abandon my charge, and am now in the country, 
seeking to recruit my health. Your very able 
letters have reached me here slovviy and with long 
intervals, and I need not say that the importance 
of the matter, and my great love and esteem for 
the writer, have commanded all the attention I 
can now bestow on any subject. The chaste style 
and luminous thought of these communications, 
their earnestness and truthfulness, and admirable 
Christian spirit, make them just like every thing I 
have known of the " Author of the Moral Science ;" 
and I am far more anxious that they should be cir- 
culated at the South than any remarks from my 
pen. To establish great moral principles is your 
province ; mine be the humbler office of an in- 
quirer. Peace and truth are all I seek, and if in 
this discussion my arguments be refuted, I shall 
be well content, provided peace and truth are 
secured ; I shall at least fall by no weak hand, 
and enjoy whatever of consolation Abimelech cov- 



DR. fuller's letters. 127 

eted, when he " called hastily unto his armor- 
bearer, and said, Draw thy sword, and slay me, 
that men may not say of me, A woman slew him." 
Indeed I am not quite sure how far I am re- 
quired to encounter you at all. My letter was 
sent at the suggestion of the Reflector, a paper 
which seems to me to be conducted not only with 
ability, but remarkable frankness and indepen- 
dence — and its single object was to employ my 
feeble effort against the fundamental dogma of the 
modern abolitionists, that slaveholding is necessarily 
'•a heinous crime in the sight of God." Such is 
the position assumed in the constitution of the 
American Anti-slavery Society ; and the inference 
is manifest — all slaveholders should be excommu- 
nicated from Christian fellowship, no matter how 
pious ; indeed, to apply the term pious to such 
persons, is as if one should speak of devout hypo- 
crites, or holy pirates. Now this doctrine is really 
as monstrous as it is uncharitable ; it finds its 
prompt refutation, not only in a thousand exam- 
ples among those whom it insults, but in the ver- 
dict of the whole Christian and civilized world, and 
I do believe in the consciences of the abolitionists 
themselves. It is a doctrine peculiar to the rest- 
less and turbulent fanaticism of this country ; for 
in England no such ground was taken by the 
churches, even in periods of the intensest excite- 
ment. There, slavery was regarded as a national 
evil, and the energies of those wishing its removal 
were exerted, not in denouncing their fellow-citi- 
zens, on whom the national policy had entailed the 
sad inheritance, but in moving parliament to adopt 
measures by which the rights both of the master 



128 DR. fuller's letters. 

and the slave were regarded. And hence it is 
worthy of observation that every respectable min- 
ister of the gospel from that country — no matter 
how zealous there against slavery — has, on coming 
to the United States, kept aloof from the Northern 
abolitionists ; and this, not from any abatement of 
zeal in crossing the Atlantic, but from a percep- 
tion of the different state of things here, and an 
invincible repugnance to the reckless and pro- 
scriptive intolerance everywhere characterizing 
that party — and which, in fact, will characterize 
any body of men, however pious and otherwise 
amiable, who allow their minds to be poisoned by 
the sentiment above mentioned. You have seen 
Dr. Chalmers's late letter, deprecating this disso- 
ciating system, and he expresses, no doubt, the 
views of all in Great Britain, who contemplate 
American slavery with calmness and wisdom. 

Now as you condemn this distinguishing tenet 
of abolitionism, and as I referred to your treatise 
only because it appeared to favor it, I might very 
well let the matter rest where it is. And to this 
course, I confess, I am the more inclined, because 
unwilling to appear in any controversy, which can, 
even by implication, place me in a false and odious 
attitude, representing me as the eulogist and abet- 
tor of slavery, and not as simply the apologist of 
an institution transmitted to us by former genera- 
tions, the existence of which I lament ; for the 
commencement of which I am not at all responsi- 
ble ; for the extinction of which I am willing to 
make greater sacrifices than any abolitionist has 
made or would make, if the cause of true humani- 
ty would thus be advanced ; but which, for all 



DR. fuller's letters. 129 

that, I do say it is wrong to pronounce a moral 
evil and a great crime in the sight of God. If, 
then, I disregard my ill health and my wishes, and 
venture to join issue with you, it is because I fear 
that, notwithstanding your caveat, the correspon- 
dence you so skilfully manage will be pressed, by 
bits and shreds, into the service of those with whom 
you disclaim all sympathy ; and become prolific 
of inferences — forbidden indeed by you, but re- 
cognised by them as legitimate and irresistible, 
and to which your charitable admissions will 
scarcely serve even as pleas in mitigation. There 
is, indeed, (and, knowing my affection, you will 
pardon my speaking plainly,) there is a passage 
of your second letter which, I venture to say, will 
be cited in every inflammatory address for a 
twelvemonth ; and which I the more regret, since 
it does not minister, I humbly apprehend, to the 
elucidation of the truth, and will serve — though 
nothing was farther from your design — to confirm 
one of the most unfounded prejudices by which the 
Northern conscience is misled and exacerbated 
in reference to slavery. You say, " Suppose that 
I should set fire to your house, shoot you as you 
came out of it, and seizing upon your wife and 
children, oblige them to labor for my benefit with- 
out their contract or consent," &c., &c. Now, 
my dear brother, I submit to you that, in a disqui- 
sition like ours, such a picture as this can serve 
only to excite the imagination by fictitious horrors, 
and to divert the mind from a calm and unbiased 
investigation. If slavery be a crime necessarily 
and essentially, the manner in which it was origi- 
nated is just nothing at all to the purpose. Sla- 



130 DR. fuller's letters. 

vei;y is a condition ; and if it be one of guilt, then 
not only is the master bound to clear his skirts of 
it without regard to its origin or consequences, but 
(as with a woman detained in adultery) it is the 
duty of the slave — his duty, not only to himself 
but to his master — to revolt and escape ; and the 
apostle enjoined a continuance in sin when he 
said, " Servants, obey your masters." After black- 
ening the conduct portrayed with every diabolical 
ingredient, you add, " The question before us I 
suppose to be simply this — would I in so doing act 
at variance with the relations existincr between us 
as creatures of God ?" But there is not, never 
was, and never can be, such a question. The 
question before us I suppose • to be simply this — is 
slaveholding always a siii? and the moment you 
make such an hypothesis as yours, it is manifest 
that another and very different question has been 
substituted, and the only proposition you under- 
took to maintain is virtually abandoned. The 
case to be proved was, that slavery is always a 
crime, a crime amid the most favorable and exten- 
uating circumstances. The case made out is, that 
slavery created by murder and arson, and perpetu- 
ated by oppression and cruelty, is a crime. 

While, however, this mode of reasoning does not 
aid our inquiry, it does, as I said, serve to nourish 
an undefined opinion, common at the North, as to 
the introduction of slavery into this country, than 
which nothing can be more unjust to the South. 
If the truth were considered as to this matter, I 
believe many at the North would regard the whole 
subject in a perfectly new light ; and therefore it 
behooves that I put, not a fanciful case, but the 



DR. fuller's letters. 131 

facts as recorded in history. Let it be borne in 
mind, then, (1) that it was the mother country 
which devised and prosecuted the system of sup- 
plying her colonies with laborers from Africa ; 
(2) that these importations were made, not only 
without consulting the colonies supplied, but in 
spite of frequent protests from them ; (3) that in 
this commerce the importations were all, with I 
believe not a single exception, in English and Nor- 
thern bottoms, and by English and Northern spec- 
ulators ; and (4) that, on the arrival of a vessel 
thus freighted, there remained for the negro only 
one alternative — -deliverance from his loathsome 
dungeon by the planter, or protracted and daily 
increasing suffering, to terminate in death. These 
are historical facts, which ought to be pondered 
before any man forms his opinion. Very old per- 
sons are now living here, and perhaps in Rhode 
Island too, who well remember the tears of joy 
shed by the unhappy prisoners when their chains 
were stricken off; and the gratitude manifested by 
them, in every look and gesture, towards those 
whom they blessed, and continued to bless during 
life, as their benefactors ; and the horror with 
which they v/ould cling to the knees of their de- 
liverers, if the ship were only pointed to, and a 
return there hinted at. Let me also mention an- 
other fact ; it is that the condition of the African 
has been vastly improved, physically, intellectu- 
ally, morally, and religiously, by his transporta- 
tion to these shores. This, I presume, will be ad- 
mitted on all hands, and therefore it is unnecessary 
for me to insist upon it. The unmeasured cornu- 
copia vituperation sometimes emptied on us, might 



132 DR. fuller's letters. 

make one fear that even this concession may be 
too great a stretch of charity for some bitter spirits 
among the agitators. But the thing is incontesta- 
ble ; and, indeed, all who mingle much with slaves 
will bear me witness, that, whether they be preach- 
ers or private Christians, one of their most com- 
mon themes, in or out of the pulpit, is the great 
goodness of God in transferring them from the 
thick darkness of their own land to the privileges 
they enjoy in ours.* 

You know Whitefield's character ; by all in the 
ministry it ought to be made a study. He was, 1 
think, the greatest preacher who ever lived, in 
what constitutes preaching. He was, too, one of 
the purest and most benevolent and holiest men. 
Writing in March 22d, 1751, he says: "This is 
my comfort ;-' all things work together for good 
to those that love God.' He is the Father of mer- 
cies and the God of all consolation. He can bring 
light out of darkness, and cause the barren wil- 
derness to smile. This, I trust, will be verified in 
Georgia. Thanks be to God, that the time for 
favoring that Colony seems to be come. I think 

^ At this day, it is computed by eye-witnesses, that prob- 
ably nine-tenths of the pojjulation of Africa are slaves ; the 
master's power beings, in most cases, arbitrary even over 
life. Mr. Hazlehurst, a missionary just from tliat country, 
states that many of the tribes eat their prisoners ; and when 
a prince dies, a thousand slaves are often first mutilated, 
and then buried with him. A map of the world, showing 
the geographical extent of slavery, would, in truth, cause 
the i)roceedings of the little meeting in London, which gran- 
diloquently styled itself " The World's Convention," to ap- 
pear, not ludicrous, for such a term would be improper, bat 
certainly most chimerical and Quixotic. 



DR. fuller's letters. 133 

now is the season for us to exert our utmost for the 
good of the poor Ethiopians. We are told, that 
even they are soon to stretch out their hands unto 
God. And who knows biit their being settled in 
Georgia may be overruled for this great end ? As 
for the lawfulness of keeping slaves, I have no 
doubt, since I hear of some that were bought with 
Abraham's money, and some that were born in his 
house." " It is plain, that the Gibeonites were 
doomed to perpetual slavery, and though liberty is 
a sweet thing to such as are born free, yet to those 
who never knew the sweets of it, slavery perhaps 
may not be so irksome. However this be, it is 
plain to a demonstration, that hot countries cannot ^ 
be cultivated without negroes." "Had Mr. Henry 
been in America, I believe he would have seen 
the lawfulness and necessity of having negroes 
there. And though it is true, that they are 
brought in a wrong v/ay from their own country, 
and it is a trade not to be approved of, yet as it 
will be carried on whether we will or not, I should 
think myself highly favored if I could purchase a 
good number of them, in order to make their lives 
comfortable, and lay a foundation for breeding up 
their posterity in the nurture and admonition of 
the Lord." " It rejoiced my soul, to hear that one 
of my poor negroes in Carolina was made a brother 
in Christ. How know we but wc may have many 
such instances in Georgia ere it be long? By 
mixing with your people, I trust many of them 
will be brought to Jesus, and this consideration, as 
to us, swallows up all temporal inconveniences 
whatsoever."* 

* If VVhitefield were now livuio, he would be deposed 

12 



134 DR. FULLER'S LETTERS. 

And now, all this being so, it appears to me the 
only question for a pure and enlarged philanthropy- 
is, what ought to be the policy of the Anglo-Saxon 
race, influenced by principles of sound wisdom, 
and true religion, towards this other race, thus 
thrown among them, constituting a strange and dis- 
tinct people, from their introduction known by 
others and knowing themselves only as slaves, and 
whose retrocession to Africa is, at least at present, 
both undesirable and impossible ? Such I conceive 
to be the momentous and solemn inquiry for the 
South ; and on this point, it is plain that a diver- 
sity of opinions may exist among those who are 
inspired with the sincerest love for God and man. 
In these States it is the settled conviction of many 
who devote their lives to the spiritual good of the 
slave population, that the principles and precepts 
of the gospel, and the course pursued by Christ 
and the apostles, are exactly adapted to the con- 
summation most to be wished ; and that, slowly but 
certainly, Christianity, as an alterative, is elevat- 
ing the negro in the scale of being, and educating 
his mind and heart for purposes as yet concealed 
from us by an inscrutable Providence. And what- 
ever may be the design of God, they are confident 
he needs not the wrath and fury of man ; and that 
" if a good work cannot be carried on by the calm, 
self-controlled, benevolent spirit of Jesus, then the 
time for doing it has not come." At the North I 
have been honored with the friendship of some of 
the holiest and wisest Christians, and have found 
them differing from each other as to the practical 

and excommunicated, and regarded as unfit to be employed 
as a missionary. 



DR. fuller's letters. 135 

question; confessing that they had no matured 
-views at all ; painfully conscious that a wisdom 
and a power high above man's are required for 
such a cause ; and devoutly lifting their souls to 
God, in a prayer now breathed night and day by 
thousands at the South — that he will work both to 
will and to do, and bring to pass all his good plea- 
sure, and cause his kingdom everywhere to come 
and his will everywhere to be done. 

In the remarks just made I have supposed, of 
course, that slavery is not proved to be a great 
crime ; for if it be, no such question as that above 
stated can be entertained. That sin must at once 
be abandoned, is a proposition which admits of no 
debate. If slavery, then, be a sin, it should at 
once be abolished. It is true the experiment with 
us would be very different from that in the British 
West Indies. There the masters were conciliated, 
the slaves were few compared with our millions, 
and they are awed into subordination by a power- 
ful military force. Yet even there the wisdom 
and benevolence of the measure are extremely 
problematical, and becoming every day more so. 
The parliamentary reports confess that the freed 
negroes refuse to work for hire, and England is 
compelled to rescue her colonies from destruction 
by reviving the slave-trade under a new name, 
and importing cargoes of Africans into her islands, 
there to starve or accept any wages offered, or, as 
will probably be the result, to augment the evil 
by swelling the crowd of drones around them.* 

* See an able article on this subject in a late Westmin- 
ster Review. 



136 

But in these States it is believed by men of the 
most devoted piety, and exalted philanthropy, and 
after patient and prayerful survey of the whole 
ground, that immediate and unconditional abolition 
would be a revolution involving the entire South 
in ruin ; breaking up all social order and peace 
and safety ; and, in fact, inflicting on the slaves 
themselves irreparable mischief. It would sud- 
denly give them a liberty for which they are 
wholly unprepared, and which would be only a 
license for indolence and crime. It would convert 
them, inevitably, from a contented and cheerful 
peasantry, into a horde of outlaws, a multitude of 
paupers with whom the white population could 
never amalgamate, who must forever feel them- 
selves (witness their condition even at the North) 
degraded and outcast from the kindred and privi- 
leges of the superior caste ; who, deprived of the 
master's protection, and no longer bound to their 
governors by the kindly and almost filial ties now 
existing, would endure perpetual humiliation and 
insult, and drag out a sullen life of envy and 
hatred and wretchedness ; or, if instigated to re- 
venge and insurrection, be certainly crushed, and 
either annihilated, or subjugated to an iron bondage, 
a military rule, from the rigors of which they 
would look back to their former state as one, not 
only of comparative, but real, substantial, con- 
trasted liberty and happiness. 

If, however, slavery be a crime, I repeat it, the 
consequences of abolition should not be considered 
at all. It is, then, of first rate importance that we 
inquire into the moral character of slavery. If it 
be a sin, all discussion as to the policy which should 



DR. fuller's letters. 137 

be adopted towards the Ethiopian race among us 
is precluded and superseded. 

Let me finish this letter by assuring you that, if 
my great distance from you did not prevent it, I 
would submit all I write to your judgment before 
allowing it to be published ; since nothing could 
mortify and grieve me more than to utter a word 
which you or anybody can regard as not deferen- 
tial and affectionate. If, then, a syllable escapes 
me in this correspondence which you think might 
have been softened or omitted, I beg you, once for 
all, to forgive it. Ascribe it to the haste with 
which I have to write. Ascribe it to the state of 
my nerves, which keep me constantly restless and 
in pain. Ascribe it, in short, to any thing but a 
want of that sincere esteem and love with which I 
am, my dear brother, 

Yours, R. Fuller. 



LETTER n. 
TO THE REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

The issue now before us regards the essential 
moral character of slavery ; and on such a ques- 
tion I am strongly disposed to pass by all ethical 
and metaphysical dissertation, and appeal at once 
to the only standard of right and wrong which can 
prove decisive. For my own part, I am heartily 

12* 



138 DR. fuller's letters. 

sick and weary of the controversies and debates 
waged and waging on every side, in which each 
party is contending, not for truth, but victory, and 
which have effected just nothing, for the want of 
some arbiter recognised by all, and whose decree 
shall be final and infallible. Now such an um- 
pire we have. Whatever importance others may 
attach to the deductions of human reasoning, and 
thus impiously array against the Scriptures those 
"oppositions of science falsely so called," which 
the Apostle terms "profane and vain babblings," 
you and I have long since put on our shields one 
motto — " Let God be true and every man a liar." 
There are, indeed, some truths which are seen, 
like the sun, by their own light ; but when the 
character of any human action admits of discus- 
sion at all, it admits, almost always, of indefinite 
discussion. The question itself of innocence and 
guilt is necessarily complex ; and it is vain, too, 
in this day of knowledge and mental discipline, to 
expect any such signal results as formerly be- 
longed to the trial by battle. No matter how an 
advocate seems to establish his opinions, they will 
not prove invulnerable. " He that is first in his 
own cause, secmcth just ; but his neighbor com- 
eth and scarcheth him ;" and the result of this 
searching invariably is, that, at least in the judg- 
ment of the neighbor's party, the first becomes last 
and the last first. 

It is, then, the responses of the sacred oracles to 
which we must after all appeal. But as we may 
rest assured that no science, truly so called, will 
be found opposed to revelation ; and as I abhor 
and abjure the blasphemy which would charge the 



DR. fuller's letters. 139 

Bible with countenancing sin ; I shall suspend 
what still appears to me (with deference) to be the 
unequivocal argument from the Scriptures, until I 
examine the logic usually employed on this sub- 
ject — my principal object being to vindicate the 
inspired volume from having, at any time or place, 
permitted and regulated a crime of the darkest 
malignity. 

Now, in order to clear away rubbish, and arrive 
at once at the point, let me remind you that it is 
simply the essential character of slavery which we 
are discussing ; and that slavery is a term whose 
meaning can be easily and accurately defined. 
Slavery is bondage. It is (to give Paley's idea in 
other language) the condition of one to whose ser- 
vice another has a right, without the consent or 
contract of the servant. The addition you make 
to this definition is really included in it ; the origi- 
nal right involving, of course, all rights necessa- 
rily and properly implied. But, my dear brother, 
while I concur fully in the conclusions you draw 
from the premises assumed, it really seems to me 
that those premises beg the whole question, and 
take for granted the only thing I ever denied. I 
am now referring to your second communication. 
Nothing can be more carefully and lucidly rea- 
soned, and the abolitionists declare they " have 
read no argument from any quarter so simple and 
yet so conclusive against slavery." And yet, 
after several times perusing this letter, will my 
brother forgive my saying that it presents to my 
mind precisely the following problem, and no 
other : — Slavery being admitted to be an aggre- 
gate of crimes, it is required to prove that slavery 



140 DR. fuller's letters. 

is criminal. As to which you very justly add, " I 
do not perceive how the subject, in this view, ad- 
mits of any argument." 

Let me go a little into detail. Your conclusion 
is, that slavery is not only a moral evil, but as 
great a sin as "we can conceive of ;" and this 
you derive from two propositions, both of which I 
humbly apprehend to be fallacious. First, you 
affirm that the right of the master is irreconcilable 
with the right of the slave to " the blessings of 
moral and intellectual cultivation, and the privi^ 
leges of domestic society ;" which I deny. Why, 
indeed, should it be ? When you hire a servant 
for a year, he is under obligation to " labor for your 
benefit" that year ; but does your right to his ser- 
vice, or your right to " use ail means necessary to 
the original right," conflict with his right to " the 
blessings of moral and intellectual cultivation, and 
the privileges of domestic society ?" The terms 
" moral cultivation" signify, I presume, improve- 
ment in holiness. Now, suppose a slave to have the 
word of God, and to enjoy all the means of grace, 
why should his moral improvement be impossible 
because he labors for my benefit ? In fact, might 
not his very position shelter him from many of 
those temptations of pride, and avarice, and ambi- 
tion, which are most fatal to piety ?* Then, again, 
as to intellectual cultivation : the laboring popula- 
tion in all countries have but little taste or time 
for literature ; but if our slaves were taught to 

* All the Greek fathers, and many eminent commenta- 
tors, maintain that the trae meaning of 1 Cor. vii. 21, is, 
" Even if liberty may be thine, remain rather in the state of 
the slave, as it is propitious to piety." See Chrys. Horn. 



DR. fuller's letters. 141 

read, I know no class of people employed in man- 
ual industry who would have more leisure for 
books. Many Roman slaves were hard students : 
they were employed as amanuenses, and their 
value was in proportion to their education. And 
so, too, as to domestic society ; why should it not 
be enjoyed by those who labor for a master ? The 
I'ight of the master, I repeat it, does not confer any 
such rights as you suppose. He may require the 
just and reasonable service of the slave, but it is a 
service exactly such as is due from a servant hired 
for the year or for life. Nor does the absence of 
" the contract or consent of the slave," nor the 
right of transfer, at all alter the nature and ex- 
tent of the master's right. The case is analogous 
to that of parents and children. A father has a 
right to the services of his child during minority, 
without the contract or consent of the child ; and 
he may transfer that right, as in case of appren- 
ticeship. But is he therefore justified in debasing 
the moral and intellectual character of the child ? 
Nay, does not the very law which gives him the 
control of his child, place him under the strongest 
obligations to promote that child's best and eternal 
interests ? And, beyond a doubt, this is the true 
light in which Christianity would have masters 
regard themselves — a view which must cause the 
holiest among us to tremble at our fearful respon- 
sibility, and bow down in contrition and penitence 
at our unfaithfulness. But this is only what I fear 
to be too true as to most parents ; and, in each 
case, it is not the relation which is sinful, but in- 
fidelity to the solemn trust which that relation cre- 
ates. 



142 

The proposition adduced by you is only a modi- 
fication of another which has so often been urged; 
viz., that man cannot be made a subject of prop- 
erty ; as to wliich who but sees that the ^\■hole 
perplexity arises from a confusion of terms ? The 
affirmants mean, that it is wrong to treat human 
beings as brutes and inanimate cliattels ; which is 
self-evident. Those who support the negative in- 
tend only, that one man may have a just right to 
the services of another, and that this right may be 
transferable ■; which is also self-evident. Here the 
dispute would at once cease, if the term property 
were defined. And just so with us. Your con- 
clusions are quite indisputable, if slavery be essen- 
tially and necessarily the compound of palpable 
infractions of right which you suppose. But this 
you surely do not maintain. You certainly do not 
believe that in Abraham's family, and among 
Christians in the apostles' days, the right was 
claimed, and exercised, to deprive the slaves of 
" the blessings of moral and intellectual cultiva- 
tion and the privileges of domestic society." In- 
deed, in your third letter, when speaking of a 
slaveholder, you say, " he may cultivate their" 
(the slaves') " intellects, and improve their morals." 
It is conceded, then, that slavery may exist without 
those evils which you mention. The right, there- 
fore, to commit them is not necessary to ensure the 
exercise of the original right of the master, and 
slavery does not confer it as you affirm. 

If instead of right you had used the word pov)er, 
and had asserted the great danger of confiding such 
irresponsible power in the hands of any man, I 
should at once have assented. There is quite 



DR. fuller's letters. 143 

abuse enough of this authority to make me regret 
its general existence. But the possession of power 
is, in itself, neither good nor eyil. Were I invested 
with despotic power over the whole earth, there 
could be manifestly no guilt in this. Good and 
evil, right and wrong, would depend on my use of 
such power. Mr. Birney, the abolition candidate 
for the Presidency, says, " He would have retained 
the power and authority of an emperor ; yet his 
oppressions, his cruelties would have ceased ; the 
very temper that prompted them, would have been 
suppressed ; his power would have been put forth 
for good and not for evil." Now what is this but 
an avowal that he could, conscientiously, have held 
a vast population in the most abject slavery — hav- 
ing power over labor, and property, and liberty, 
and life ; and that, in itself, this would be no 
crime ? The power of the master I therefore ad- 
mit. I admit, too, its frequent and shameful abuse, 
and I unite with you in deploring and condemning 
this as heinous sin. But to include in the idea 
of slavery " the right" to oppress and degrade, is 
to confound two things entirely distinct, and which 
really have no sort of connection. 

It is urged, however, that slavery is a sin, be- 
cause it does violate those primary rights which 
belong to all human beings, and of which none 
can deprive them without doing aggravated wrong. 
This is your second proposition, in enforcing which 
you consider man, (1) as an immortal being pre- 
paring for eternity ; (2) as an intelligent being 
capable of knowledge ; (3) as a moral agent bound 
to serve his Creator ; (4) as endowed with personal 
liberty ; (5) as a fallen creature to whom the gos- 



144 DR. fuller's letters. 

pel is sent ; (6) and, lastly, as sustaining marital 
and parental relations ; and I understand you to 
affirm, that, in all these respects, slavery is neces- 
sarily an outrage on the rights of man. " To put 
the matter in a simple light" you suppose one to 
" set fire" to his neighbor's house ; to shoot him as 
he comes out of it ; to seize his wife and children, 
and keep them as slaves, and forbid them to read, 
and consign them and their offspring to mental im- 
becility, and deny them the knowledge of God : 
and I understand you to affirm (ibr otherwise the 
supposition is wholly irrelevant) that slaveholding 
necessarily involves all this crime. You then 
remark, that " the question before us simply is, 
whether this would be criminal ?" and add, " I do 
not see how any intelligent creature can give more 
than one answer to this question." And, verily, 
so say I ; and my only surprise is, that the very 
enormity of your premises did not startle you, and 
cause you to suspect error somewhere, and admon- 
ish you that what you supposed to be " the onlv 
question before us," never was, and never could 
be, a question at all with any intelligent creature. 
You admit that the holiest men in the Old and 
New Testaments were masters of slaves ; but do 
you believe they were the monsters of wickedness 
depicted in your portrait, or that they violated all 
the rights which you have speciiicd ? Slavery, 
then, may exist without inflicting these aggravated 
wrongs. Again, allow me 1o refer to your third 
letter, where the heart of my dear brother argues, 
(for the heart hath its reasonings, and they are 
often truer than the slow deductions of the head,) 
and to cite the following language : " I have known 

13 



DR. fuller's letters. 145 

Christian slaveholders who have devoted themselves 
through life to the welfare, temporal and spiritual, , 
of their slaves, with the spirit of the most self- 
denying missionaries ;. and who, I confidently be- 
lieve, if they could do it with a reasonable prospect 
of improving the condition of their slaves, would 
gladly manumit them, and support themselves by 
daily labor at the North. Such men and women 
do honor to human nature. They are the true 
friends of their race." Now, here is slavery. 
Here is no painting of fancy ; no impracticable, 
Utopian abstraction ; but slavery as you have 
known it, and as others know it to exist. And, is 
this one of the greatest crimes which can be con- 
ceived ? Or is it not here conceded, that cases 
may occur where there is, not only no guilt in the 
act, but no moral evil in the thing ? You agree 
with me '•' that if slavery be a sin, it is the imme- 
diate duty of masters to abolish it, whatever be the 
result ;" and I say, too, this is their duty, whatever 
be the law of the State. Suppose, now, the laws 
of South Carolina should forbid an adulterer to dis- 
solve his criminal connection ; or require one of 
her citizens living by piracy to continue his despe- 
rately wicked career. These enactments are felt 
by all to be impossible, while no such emotions are i^ 
excited by laws protecting slavery ; a truth of it- 
self showing that, in the instinctive consciousness 
of mankind, slavery is not necessarily in the cate- 
gory of crimes. Suppose, however, such a code ; 
and suppose the adulterer and pirate should perse- 
vere in their courses, and plead these laws ; could 
you — could even your kind disposition bring you 
to regard them as innocent ? How would it sound 

13 



146 DR. fuller's letters. 

to hear my brother say, " I have known Christian 
aduherers who have devoted themselves through 
life to the welfare, temporal and spiritual, of their 
paramours, with the spirit of the most self-denying 
missionaries ; and who, I confidently believe, if 
they could do it with a reasonable prospect of im- 
proving the condition of their paramours, would 
gladly leave them, and discontinue the guilty inter- 
course. Such adulterers do honor to human na- 
ture. They are the true friends of their race'' ! ! 
In fact, a single glance at the definition of slavery- 
will convince anybody, that the argument ad- 
vanced is precisely like that which proves murder 
of the most aggravated sort to be criminal, when 
the only issue is, whether in any case it be justifi- 
able to take human life. Of all the rights enu- 
merated by you, slaveholding necessarily interferes 
only with personal freedom ; for we have before 
seen, what is perfectly manifest, that a man may 
be held in bondage, and yet be treated in every 
respect as an immortal, intelligent, moral, fallen, 
ransomed being, yea and a Christian brother, and 
his conjugal and parental relations be sacredly re- 
spected ; which I take to be the exact precept of 
the gospel. The question then is simply this — is it 
necessarily a crime in the sight of God, to restrict 
or control that personal liberty which every man is 
supposed to have in a state of nature ? 
Most affectionately, dear brother, 

Yours, R. FULLER. 



DR. fuller's letters. 147 



LETTER III. 

TO THE REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

I trust I have shown that slavery is not essen- 
tially the comprehensive wrong you make it ; that 
a right to the services of a man without his con- 
tract or consent, does not confer any such rights 
as you suppose ; and that slavery does not inter- 
fere necessarily with any of those rights called 
primary, except personal freedom. The discus- 
sion is then pruned to this, — Is it necessarily a 
crime in the sight of God to control or curtail the 
natural personal liberty of a human being ? A 
question admitting no debate at all. 

It will not be disputed that government is the 
ordinance of God. But government is restraint; 
the very idea of government includes an abridg- 
ment of that personal freedom which a savage has 
in the forest, and a modification of it into political 
freedom, or civil rights and privileges. 

Is it, then, necessarily a crime for a government 
to discriminate between those whom it controls, in 
the distribution of civil privileges and political 
liberty 1 It would surely be preposterous to affirm 
this. Every government has necessarily a right 
to pass laws indispensable to its existence ;* and 

* " Whatever concessions on the part of the individual, 
and whatever powers on the part of society, are necessary 



148 DR. fuller's letters. 

it has a right, also, to establish those regulations 
which shall best promote the good of the whole 
population. Whether any particular enactments 
be necessary, and whether they do secure the 
greatest good, are points as to which error may be 
committed, but as to which each government is the 
judge ; and if it acts uprightly, with all the lights 
possessed, there is no crime. We boast of our 
liberties, and are forever quoting the words of the 
Declaration of Independence ; yet in this country 
it has been deemed most for the good of the whole, 
that one half of the citizens (and I believe by far 
the noblest, purest, and best half) should be dis- 
franchised of a great many civil rights. This is 
true, also, of all citizens until they reach an age 
wholly conventional, — viz. twenty-one. Is this a 
sin ? Will it be urged that all are born free and 
equal, and that it is wicked to violate the indefea- 
sible rights of women and minors ? The day is 
coming, I venture to predict, when our regenera- 
tors will utter such frantic arguments ; for they 
drive on, unrecking and unheeding alike the plain- 
est dictates of reason and experience, and the stern 
lessons of the French Revolution, and the warning 
voice which spoke in such fearful accents amid 
the havoc and butchery and desolation of St. Do- 
mingo. But no good citizen considers the inequali- 
ties existing in these States criminal. 

When we pass to England and France, we find 
these social distinctions far more numerous, and 
marked, and exclusive. Multitudes there are de- 

to the existence of society, must, by the very fact of the 
existence of society, betaken for granted." — Moral Science, 
p. 391. 



DR. FULLER S LETTERS. 149 

prived of all right of suffrage in reference to laws 
which affect their property and lives ;* and Parlia- 
ment and the Chambers think this most conducive 
to the great end of social organization, the gene- 
ral good. In Russia civil power is vested in one 
man. The liberty of the noble is restricted ; that 
of the plebeian is still less ; and that of the serf 
scarcely more than is enjoyed by the African in 
this State. And in Russia this is believed to be 
best for the good of the empire. Now what poli- 
tical organization is most desirable for a particular 
people depends on circumstances ;f but whatever 
be that adopted, whether democracy or despotism, 
the rights of man, as a human being, are trenched 
upon ; and visionary have proved, and will prove, 
all projects of constructing and fashioning society 
according to philosophical notions and theories of 
abstract " inalienable rights." That slavery, or 
any civil institution, interferes with the liberty of 
a man or a class of men, does not, then, make it ne- 
cessarily and amid all circumstances a crime. 

To put this in a plain light, let me suppose that 
one of these Southern republics should be inspired 
with the truest philanthropy ; that her constituency 
should, for the first time, regard piety as important 
in a representative ; that the benignant spirit of 
Jesus should penetrate her halls of legislation, and 

* In France there are thirty-four millions of people, and 
only one hundred thousand are electors of Deputies to the 
Chambers. 

t " If it be asked, Which of these is the preferable form 
of government ? the answer, I think, must be conditional 
The best form of government for any people is the best 
that its present moral condition renders practicable." — Ihido 
p. 397. 

13* 



150 BR. 

pervade all her councils ; and that the present gov- 
ernment — finding the African race under its con- 
trol — satisfied that even if their removal were 
practicable, it is not desirable for their own good 
— should address itself with paternal assiduity to 
their welfare and happiness. All obnoxious laws 
are abrogated. The slaves are educated, their 
rights as immortal, intellectual, moral, and social 
beings are protected, and their religious instruc- 
tion secured. If you choose, we will say that 
their labor is regulated, and instead of the com- 
pensation resting with the master, it is fixed by 
statute. Suppose, however, this government, using 
the lights of wisdom and experience, is convinced 
that the black population cannot be admitted to the 
privileges of free citizens, but that tbe good of the 
whole community, the safety and existence of the 
republic, and the negroes' own best interests, re- 
quire that their personal liberty Be restrained. 
Will it be pretended that such conduct would be 
criminal ? Nor is there any thing impossible in 
the hypothesis. It might become fact to-morrow ; 
and no doubt among the Christian masters ad- 
dressed by the apostles, and in the patriarchs' 
families, such a picture had many originals, as far 
as it portrays the fostering and parental character 
of the relation. Onesimus might have been men- 
tally, and morally, and religiously cultivated, and 
yet have been a slave ; and his very piety would 
have caused him to " be obedient unto his master. '^ 
Among the Romans it was not unusual for slaves 
to be men of much learning. 

As soon as slavery is mentioned at the North, 
there is conjured up, in the minds of many per- 



DR. fuller's letters. 151 

sons, I know not what confused, revolting combina- 
tion, and heart-rending spectacle, of chains, and 
whips, and cruelty, and crime, and wretchedness. 
But, I repeat it, even at the peril of tediousness, 
that necessarily and essentially — (and in a multi- 
tude of instances, practically and actually) — sla- 
very is nothing more than the condition of one who 
is deprived of political power, and does service, — 
without his contract and consent, it is true, but yet 
it may be, cheerfully and happily, and for a com- 
pensation reasonable and certain, paid in modes of 
return best for the slave himself. With what is 
strictly physical liberty, the master interferes no 
more, in such cases, than you do with a hired ser- 
vant. The work assigned is confessedly very light 
— scarcely one half of that performed by a white 
laborer with you. When that is performed, the 
slaves (to use an expression common with them) 
are "their own masters." And if you ever allow 
us the pleasure of seeing you at the South, you 
will find slaves tilling land for themselves ; working 
as mechanics for themselves, and selling various ar- 
ticles of merchandise for themselves ; and when you 
inquire of them some explanation, they will speak of 
their rights, and their property, with as clear a sense 
of what is due to them, and as much confidence, as 
they could if free ; and tell you (to use another of 
their phrases) that they do all this "in their own 
time." 

I hope, my dear brother, I have now shown that 
your ethical argument does not hold good. And 
I hope so, not only because it is most painful to me 
if 1 am compelled to differ from you on any sub- 
ject, but because, if your view be correct, you will 



15S DR. fuller's letters. 

sooner make people infidels, than convince them 
that the Bihle does not look with allowance on " as 
great a crime as can be conceived" — which is down- 
right blasphemy. Let me recapitulate the views I 
have tried to express in this and the last letter. 

(1.) A right to the service of a man without his 
contract or consent, conveys no additional rights 
but those proper and absolutely necessary to this 
original right. But it is not proper and necessary 
to this original right, that a human being be de- 
prived of any right which is justly his, as an im- 
mortal, intelligent, moral, social, and fallen crea- 
tare. Therefore, a right to the services of a man 
without his contract or consent, does not justify any 
wrong done to his mind, or soul, or domestic rela- 
tions. Therefore your first assumption fails. 

(2.) Slavery may exist without interfering with 
any of man's natural rights, except personal free- 
dom. But to interfere with personal freedom is 
not necessarily a sin. Therefore slavery is not 
necessarily a sin. Therefore your second assump- 
tion fails. 

These sorites appear to me almost self-evident, 
and to present the subject in its true light — a light 
too often darkened by a cloud of words about 
'• making man a brute, and a mere piece of prop- 
erty.'" Such language is in itself absurd, for 
nothing but a miracle can effect these transfor- 
mations. It is, also, the most sheer verbiage of 
shallow declamation. As well might it be said, 
that a child is a brute, and a mere piece of prop- 
erty, because his parent has a right to his services, 
and this right is a transferable one. The most ne- 
farious code of laws ever perpetrated, recognised 



DR. fuller's letters. 153 

the slave as a sentient, moral, human being, at 
least, by holding him accountable for his actions. 
Nor are the views I have advanced at all affected 
by the fact that the children of the slaves are born 
to slavery. This is only saying that their position 
in society is determined by the accident of birth ; 
which is equally true as to the position of the 
woman in this country, the commoner in England, 
and the serf in Russia. Slavery may or may not 
be, hereditary ; but this depends not on the parent's 
being a brute, or a mere piece of property, but on 
the political organization. 

By far my greatest embarrassment in these let- 
ters has been, and is, about language by which 
to dispute your allegations, without seeming to 
overstep the modesty becoming me, or to depart 
from that affectionate deference I cherish towards 
you. After ail, however, I am more familiar with 
the subject under discussion than my Northern 
brethren can be, and my position discloses to me 
the truth, which I will express in so many words 
by saying, that slavery, ahsohUe and unqualified sla- 
very, is despotis?n. Indeed, deairorris (despoies) is the 
very Greek term used by the apostles for " mas- 
ter." But now it is conceded on all hands, that 
despotic power is not a sin, and may be " put 
forth" most beneficently " for good and not for 
evil." This the most vehement abolitionist admits. 
I have, however, much higher authority than any 
abolitionist. I have, in fact. Job's wish ; mine ad- 
versary hath written a book — a book, justly re- 
garded as a classic — and he says, " A people may 
be so entirely surrendered to the influence of pas- 
sion, and so feebly influenced by moral restraint. 



154 DR. fuller's letters. 

that a government which relied upon moral re- 
straint could not exist for a day. In this case, a 
subordinate and inferior principle yet remains, the 
principle of fear ; and the only resort is to a gov- 
ernment of force, or a military despotism."* And 
what is all this but yielding the whole question ? 
Let us not be imposed on by names, nor dazzled 
by magnificent titles. A despot is the absolute 
master of a whole nation of slaves, and has power 
of life and death. His authority, however, may 
be conscientiously retained, and instead of a cruel 
tyrant, he may be a splendid benefactor, whose 
name shall glitter on the pages of history. And I 
venture to say that if Mr. Birney had this authori- 
ty, and " put it forth," (as I dare say that gentle- 
man would) " for good and not for evil," he would 
not only be welcomed by the abolitionists to the 
eucharist, but be applauded to the skies. Why, 
then, must slavery be necessarily " a heinous 
sin ?" Slavery, in its worst form, is only despot- 
ism. Even the Roman master was only a despot. 
At the South the phrase cannot be employed in its 
proper import, for the authority of the master is 
greatly restricted by law ; and it is a capital of- 
fence in him to murder his slave. Yet, no matter 
how the Southern Christian " puts forth his power" 
— he may employ it " for good and not for evil," 
and be most just, and humane, and benevolent — it 
does not signify ; he is a monster of wickedness, 
and his very power a great crime. On a small 
scale, slavery is as great an iniquity as can be 
conceived, and violates all the rights of man as 

* Moral Science, page 397. 



DR. fuller's letters. 155 

man. But on a large scale it is quite a different 
thing. A throne, a sceptre, a strip of velvet sprink- 
led with diamonds, and clasped around the mas- 
ter's brows, exert a super-magical influence, and 
achieve a miracle impossible even to Deity — that 
of altering the entire moral character of an ac- 
tion. 

If the view I now press was taken of the sub- 
ject, (and it is unquestionably the strongest view 
allowed by the Bible,) I do not see why Christians 
might not concur in their wishes to improve and 
meliorate the condition of the slaves, though disa- 
greeing as to the best mode. May not the most 
zealous abolitionist be satisfied with the conces- 
sion that slavery, if not restrained by law, is des- 
potism ? And does not truth require of him the 
admission, in return, that at the South this despot- 
ism is (if I may so speak) not absolute, but miti- 
gated and limited ? And does not that charity 
which " hopeth all things and believeth all things," 
demand of him the hope and belief, that a brother, 
whom he knows to be a Christian, is " putting 
forth his authority for good and not for evil," and 
doing what he conceives best for the Africans 
themselves ? These are questions to which but 
one reply can be given. But if all this be so, how 
will men answer to God for that high-handed, ar- 
bitrary temper, which denounces, and cuts off from 
Christian fellowship, the whole South, because dif- 
fering from some at the North in honest convic- 
tions ? I would affectionately ask such brethren, 
whether, while promising liberty to the negro, they 
are not attempting towards the master the worst 
sort of tyranny, the most odious despotism — I mean 



156 DR. fuller's letters. 

spiritual tyranny, and despotism over the con- 
science ? 

There are a few of these brethren who do not 
hesitate to insinuate that we all see the sin, but 
cling to it through selfishness. To such we can 
only return " blessing for cursing.". I, of course, 
cannot consent to argue with them, except to say, 
they ought not to excommunicate us for being- 
slaveholders, but to pray for us as unconverted 
persons. There are others who are forever per- 
plexing a great question with quirks and quibbles, 
regarding it as a matter of mere property, and 
saying, "If the original title were vicious, nothing 
can make the present title good." Such argu- 
ments are as little suited to your mind as to this 
topic, and therefore are not offered by you, and 
need only be glanced at by me. The Africans 
have been brought here. The manner in which 
any particular individuals were procured we 
know not ; they, and those who enslaved them, 
have, almost all, long since stood before the Judge. 
I have in my first letter referred to this part of the 
subject. Here the black race are, nor have they 
any other home. If their importafion was without 
their consent, it was equally without mine. And 
can there be a more unsophisticated impertinence, 
than to divert my mind from the great inquiry as 
to present duty l^efore me, in order to examine in- 
to the original title ? The right of a parent springs 
from the dependence of his child ; and by depen- 
dence, by very necessity under the existing politi 
cal organization, the slaves are placed in their 
present relation to me. As a mere legal subtlety, 
this sophistry, so frequently urged with an air of 



DR. fuller's letters. 157 

triumph at abolition meetings, would discredit a 
young attorney whose astuteness had been called 
into play by his first retainer. It is as if one 
should make a title to land in New York depend 
on the manner in which the land was obtained 
from the Indians ; and by those Indians from their 
predecessors : and so on until its antediluvian 
soundness were ascertained. Or rather, as if, to 
establish the right of a reigning sovereign to the 
throne, it were required that he ascend to the ori- 
gin of all government in the country, and prove 
that the existing organization was introduced with- 
out violence or injury to a single forefather of the 
land. 

You must already have perceived that, speak- 
ing abstractly of slavery, I do not consider its per- 
petuation proper, even if it be possible. Nor let 
any one ask, why not perpetuate it if it be not a 
sin ? The I3ible informs us what man is ; and, 
among such beings, irresponsible power is a trust 
too easily and too frequently abused. All must 
feel that, in this country, the subject is surrounded 
and encumbered with peculiar difficulties, inas- 
much as the slaves are a distinct race. On this 
topic, however, I need not speak. My sole busi- 
ness now is with present duty. That duty is not 
the emancipation, but the instruction, moral and 
intellectual, of the slave; just as in a despotism, 
the duty is, not granting a free constitution, but 
improving the subjects. I do hope, then, that 
you may acquiesce in the sentiments above ex- 
pressed, and not insist that slavery is necessarily, 
and amidst all circumstances, a sin. This you 
can do without the slightest compromise of truth, 

14 



158 DR. FULLER S LETTERS. 

and with the best hope of advancing our common 
object. We should thus, too, be reconciled, not 
only with each other, but with the Scriptures, and 
you be relieved from the laborious, up-hill, Sisy- 
phus-task, of overcoming the word of God. 

In all I have been writing, you see that I have 
kept strictly to the essentials of slavery, and it is 
inaccuracy here which occasions much of the dis- 
pute existing between the North and South. For 
example, how constantly do we find the abolition 
prints intolerant of calm reasoning on what they 
call abstract slavery, and exclaiming, ' let us have 
it as it is.' But how is that ? Upon no two plan- 
tations is our servitude the same thing. In some 
instances there may be all the injustice and heart- 
lessness you so well describe ; while, in others, 
the definition of Paley requires no addition, but 
material retrenchment — for the slaves are not only 
watched over with guardian kindness and affec- 
tion, but prefer to remain with their masters, so 
that it cannot be said they serve him without their 
contract or consent,* 

It will be replied, that we must take slavery as 
it is embodied in the Southern laws; and. this, in 
fact, is the great and fruitful source of misconcep- 
tion. What I am writing about is slavery, but let 
no one suppose that I am defending all the slave 
laws. The statutes of a government for the regu- 
lation of slaves may be most oppressive and wick- 

* In an early letter, copied by the Reflector, I referred to 

the case of the Rt. Rev. Dr. M , of Virginia, who, after 

preparing a family of slaves to provide for themselves, sent 
them to Pennsylvania. But they soon implored him to re- 
ceive them back. 



DR. fuller's letters. 159 

ed ; this, however, does not prove slavery a sin, 
any more than harsh and cruel enactments to- 
wards apprentices, prove apprenticeship a sin ; or 
than a law giving parents the power, or requiring 
them, to abuse their children, would prove that it 
is criminal to have children. The distinction here 
is certainly palpable, and yet, it appears to me, 
your entire argument — though put abstractly 
against slavery — was really framed against the *^ 
slave laws, and applies only to them. What my 
relation as master, or parent, gives me a right to 
do, is one thing ; what the law may permit, or 
even enjoin, is another. The Roman law allowed 
masters to kill their slaves, and throw them into 
their ponds to feed fish ; does it therefore follow 
that a Christian master had a right to do this ? ^ 
Human laws have permitted kings to murder their 
subjects at will, and with the most cruel torments ; 
does it follow that a king has a right to do this, or 
that the exercise of regal authority is necessarily 
a crime ? It surely cannot be requisite for me to 
dwell on this point. Yet it is because good men 
among the abolitionists shut their eyes to the dif- 
ference between a domestic or social relation, and 
the enactments concerning it, that they persist in 
denouncing slavery as a sin. 

In reference to the laws of South Carolina I am 
not called to express myself in this discussion. 
Suffice it to say, that most of them are virtually t^ 
repealed hj universal practice. The law, for ex- 
ample, forbidding slaves to assemble without the 
presence of so many white persons, is a dead let- 
ter, whenever the meeting is for religious pur- 
poses. Missionaries are everywhere traversing 



160 DR. fuller's letters. 

the land, and preaching the gospel to multitudes 
of slaves without molestation. The Beaufort 
church employs six or seven brethren constantly 
in this good work ; and here, in the country, I 
walk, every Sabbath, and occasionally in the week, 
about a mile, and violate this statute most indus- 
triously. 

I might make the same remark of many other 
statutes. Most of them are only permissive, 
and the liberty granted should of course be con- 
trolled, or overruled, by what is just and equal. 
And those which prohibit a discharge of the mas- 
ter's duty are often notoriously inoperative. The 
most important law is that forbidding slaves being 
taught to read ; yet how many are taught ! And 
this act would, long since, have been expunged, 
but for the infatuated intermeddling of fanaticism. 
It is but a year or two since, at the request of the 
President of the State Agricultural Society, I wrote 
a letter, to be read before that body, on the reli- 
gious instruction of our negroes ; and, in that com- 
munication, I urged the abrogation of this law. 
The President, however, a gentleman of age, ex- 
perience, and exalted humanity, desired permis- 
sion to strike out that clause. And when I had 
considered his reasons, and seen the character of 
the incendiary publications with which the South 
had just before been deluged — works evidently 
appealing to the worst passions of the slave — I 
was not surprised that the best and most benevo- 
lent individuals should regard the provision as ne- 
cessary, and wise, and even kind. I had, of 
course, to yield ; and this is only one of the in- 
stances in which those who are the true friends of 



DR. fuller's letters. 161 

the slave, and whose position enables them to plead 
his cause, have found themselves defeated by the 
lamentable and cruel system of vituperation and 
agitation recklessly persisted in at the North. Of 
these defeats upon whom does the heaviest guilt 
rest? 

Nor should good men among the abolitionists 
complain, if, in rebuking the wicked and mis- 
chievous measures of the party, no exceptions are 
made ; for it is these very men who lend influence 
to the abolition associations. In its proper import, 
the anti-slavery party comprehends nineteen- 
twentieths of the people of the United States. The 
abolitionists, however, are a band by themselves. 
With them the rudimental, initiating article is, 
that slaveholders are heinous culprits, and as such 
to be universally treated. This bitter, persecuting 
creed is the great bond of union, and faith in it a 
cosmetic for most serious blemishes. If a man 
subscribe to this fierce tenet, he is a brother, and ad- 
mitted to the pulpit and communion table, however 
destitute of the meek and holy spirit of Christ. 
But no matter what the character of one who is by 
birth placed in the painfully responsible situation 
of a slaveholder, the damnatory clause does not 
suffer him to be spared. He is to be anathema- 
tized, and the church armed with her most awful 
sentences against him. Nay, he is deemed unfit 
to be a missionary to his own slaves; or even to 
take the lowest place among those who wish to ad- 
vance the Redeemer's cause upon earth. Such is 
the malignant spirit of the party — a spirit never 
engendered by truth, and over which charity can 
only weep — and all who belong to that party are 

14* 



162 DR. fuller's letters. 

responsible for the mischief it does. They all sow 
the wind, and the whirlwind is only ,the liarvest 
they have reaped. 

I think, my dear brother, it will appear to your- 
self, on a review of our letters thus far, that, in 
order to justify your condemnation of slavery, as 
always a crime, you have constantly found it 
necessary to surcharge it with merely imaginary, 
or at worst, accidental evils ; and to blacken it as 
much as possible. Fire, sword, gunpowder, and 
the wanton violation of all human rights, are put 
in requisition ; whereas, you were bound to con- 
fine yourself to the strict essentials, and prove them 
sinful. On the contrary, while my proposition 
required me only to speak of the most benignant 
form and origin of the institution, I have purposely 
adopted the definition of Paley, an antagonist, to 
every part of which I might object. He includes 
in slavery an " obligation to labor," and this 
" without the slave's contract or consent." But 
slavery is only bondage ; and this may be volun- 
tary, and by one's own contract ;* and there may 
be no obligation whatever to labor, since a man 
who should sell himself to another on condition 

* Such was the slavery mentioned in Genesis, when the 
Egyptians said to Joseph, " Wherefore shall we die of fam- 
ine ? Buy us and our land for bread. And Joseph said unto 
the people. Behold, I have bought you and your land for 
Pharaoh. And they said. Thou hast saved our lives." It 
is not uncommon in this State for slaves to be conveyed 
absolutely, and at their own request, to some friend who will 
allow them to work for themselves. I am thus legatee of 
several. Here the power is legally given, and the bequest 
absolute, and the slavery really exists ; but it is, of course, 
overruled by the wish of the testators. And just so in all 



DR. fuller's letters. 163 

that he be allowed to sleep out his life, would be 
in all respects a slave. I avoid, however, all nice 
distinctions, that I may meet the subject practi- 
cally. 

Having described the condition of a slave, I 
ought now to advert to the obligations of the mas- 
ter ; but I have not space, nor is it requisite. Let 
me only say, (and with the most solemn earnest- 
ness, for God forbid I should ever utter a word 
which may perpetuate cruelty and sin,) that the 
right of the master not only does not give him any 
such license of wholesale oppression and wrong as 
you suppose, but really places him under the deep- 
est corresponding obligations to promote the inter- 
est, temporal and eternal, of his slaves. And 
though we have all been " verily guilty concern- 
ing our brethren" who are dependent on us, yet I 
trust the South is becoming every day more alive 
to its responsibility. Already much has been 
effected ; and, as a class, I believe our slaves to be 
now better compensated, and, in moral, intellectu- 
al, and religious condition, superior to most opera- 
tives in Europe. From parliamentary reports, it 
appears that in Ireland three millions and a half 
of people live in mud hovels, having one room, and 
without chimney or window. In England and 
Wales there are three millions of people without 
any pastoral provision. In London itself the sta- 
tistics of misery and vice are appalling. On one 
occasion, said a speaker in Exeter Hall, four fami- 
lies occupied one small room, each hiring a corner ; 

cases the power is, with " beHeving masters," controlled by 
a sense of duty to the servant, and accountability to God, 
and love to both. 



164 DR. FULLER S LETTERS. 

and in one of these corners there was a corpse 
lately dead, and four men using it as a table to 
play cards upon. And if this be so in Great Brit- 
ain, need I speak of Spain and Russia, or attest 
what I myself have seen of ignorance and super- 
stition and degradation in Italy ? We are far, 
however, from having acquitted ourselves of our 
duty ; and I do not wish to palliate, much less 
defend by recrimination, the unfaithfulness of the 
South to the sacred trust imposed upon us. I 
therefore dismiss this part of the subject without 
enlarging, as I easily might. 

Let me finish this letter ; and I do it by repeat- 
ing the hope that my brethren at the North will 
not continue to confound slavery with its concomi- 
tants, and denounce it as necessarily a heinous 
crime in the sight of God. This assertion is not 
true. It is truth mixed up with error, and, like all 
half truths, is more pernicious than pure falsehood. 
At the South such a charge is felt to be unjust, 
and serves only to exasperate. At the North it 
foments a bitter and unrelenting spirit of proscrip- 
tion. It does not aid, but injure, the cause of 
the slave ; for it must require, not his improve- 
ment, but his immediate emancipation, which you 
do not advise. It will rend apart those in this 
country who ought to be united, and on whose 
union, I am persuaded, the integrity of our national 
existence depends. It outrages the convictions of 
the mass of the wise and good in every land. It 
is contradicted by the venerable testimony of every 
Christian church for ages. And. what is infinitely 
worse than all, it arrays those who adopt it in 
irreconcilable conflict with the Bible — a conflict 



DR. fuller's letters. 165 

hopeless indeed, and serving only to vindicate the 
impregnable stability of the truth, but yet a con- 
flict greatly to be deplored. 

Most affectionately, dear brother. 

Yours, R. FULLER. 



LETTER IV. 

TO THE REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D. 

My dear Brother — 

Up to this point I have considered the subject 
before us as a pure question of moral and political 
science, and attempted to show that, like other 
social organizations, slavery is not necessarily a 
crime ; and that even the power of the Roman 
master, though perfectly despotic, was not in itself 
a sin. To establish this was the more important, 
because good men are justly shocked, when they 
understand slavery to be a heinous sin, and find 
people attempting to shelter themselves under the 
sanction of the Bible. Perish the thought ! they 
exclaim, and I cordially join them. To charge 
this impiety upon Christians at the South, however, 
is to do them great injustice. Such an accusation 
takes for granted the very thing we deny. We 
believe that all just moral institutes are only an 
expansion of those golden maxims, " Whatsoever 
ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also 
to them ;" and, " Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
as thyself." We believe these precepts apply to 



166 DR. fuller's letters. 

masters and servants, just as to masters and ap- 
prentices, or parents and children, or kings and 
subjects. We believe that they reach eveiy 
abuse of slavery ; and condemn all intellectual, 
moral, and domestic injustice. But we do not be- 
lieve that they make the relation itself sinful, or 
require, as they must do if it be a crime, its prompt 
dissolution. Such disruption might, and in some 
cases would, subvert society itself, and be real 
charity neither to the masters nor the slaves. 

It will not do, then, for you to conduct the cause 
as if we had been proved guilty, and were put on 
our defence. This is the ground always taken at 
the North, and because Southern Christians reply 
with the Bible in their hands, they are misunder- 
stood. Politically, and ethically, I have proved 
that despotism itself is not necessarily a sin. In 
appealing to the word of God, we are not required 
to prove a negative, and justify ourselves ; but you, 
to make out your case, and prove us guilty. " Sin 
is a transgression of the law," and you are bound 
to show the law we transgress. All will acknow- 
ledge this to be the fair position of the accuser and 
accused. Whereas I submit to you, that your 
Bible argument entirely overlooks our forensic 
rights, and is an examination of the question 
whether the Bible justifies slavery. Suppose the 
Bible does not justify it; still, unless condemned 
by the Bible, slavery may remain among things 
indifferent, and be classed with that large number 
of actions whose moral character depends on the 
peculiar circumstances of each case. Nor am I 
surprised that those who undertake your arduous 
office always pursue this line of reasoning, since 



DR. FULLER'S LETTERS. 167 

the assertion that slavery is itself and always a 
sin, jars harshly with what appears to plain men 
as the unequivocal teaching of the Scriptures ; 
and, therefore, it is felt, in the outset, that much 
explanation and ingenuity are indispensable; 
otherwise, not only must the charge fail, but the 
prosecutors themselves incur a serious impeach- 
ment. 

The assertion just mentioned as to the inherent 
guilt of slavery, is the distinctive article with 
modern abolitionists. But after studying the sub- 
ject in all its bearings, they have clearly perceived, 
that if the Hebrew and Greek terms rendered ser- 
vant in our Bibles really signify slave, there is an 
end either of their dogma or of submission to the 
Scriptures. Hence, after trying in vain the whole 
apparatus of exegetical torture, they have — with, 
I believe, much unanimity — set all philology and 
history at defiance, and resolutely deny that such 
is the import of those words. When Paul says, 
" We are all baptized into one body, whether we 
be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free," 
the terms "Jew" and " Gentile" mean something; 
but " bond" and " free" imply no distinction at 
all ! And to get rid of the Old Testament, various 
interpretations have been contrived, of which the 
latest is quite curious. While moving earth and 
heaven about the thraldom of the negro, the aboli- 
tionists refuse to the white man even liberty of 
speech, and wish to erect an inquisition over the 
mind. A very pious Presbyterian pastor has lately 
been arraigned by them, not for holding slaves, 
but for daring even to utter his honest convictions 
on the subject of slavery. And at that trial it was 



168 DR. fuller's letters. 

declared (if the newspapers did no injustice to the 
orators) that slavery was not known in Abraham's 
day except among the heathen ; that the patriarch 
was a prince, and the persons bought with his 
money were subjects, whom he purchased to im- 
prove their condition. So that,' after all, the ob- 
jection is entirely to the name, and will at once be 
withdrawn if Southern masters only call them- 
selves princes, and their slaves subjects — for as- 
suredly, if we ourselves had purchased the African 
captives from their native masters, we might plead 
that their condition has been immeasurably im- 
proved. 

You do but give vent to the pious indignation of 
a candid heart, when, speaking of such escapes 
from the dilemma, you say, " I wonder that any 
one should have the hardihood to deny so plain a 
matter of record. I should almost as soon deny 
the delivery of the ten commandments to Moses." 
Yet these are good men, nor is their perfect sin- 
cerity to be questioned. The truth is, that M'hen 
an opinion has been expressed, and pride of intel- 
lect and consistency thus enlisted for its support., 
no one can say to what lengths he may be carried 
by its blinding influence ; and our opinions arc 
not unfrequently defended with an obstinacy ex- 
actly proportioned to the precipitation with which 
they were adopted. 

How it seems to others I know not, but to my 
mind one of the most lamentable effects of modern 
ultraism is the collision it is producing between 
Christians, and that volume to which all Christians 
profess to bow in reverence. God has revealed 
his v.hole will. The Scriptures are " able to make 



DR. fuller's letters. 169 

us wise unto salvation," and these Scriptures have 
been purposely written by plain men, so that plain 
men may understand them. If we " wrest these 
Scriptures," it is "to our own destruction;" and 
most righteously, for what guilt half so aggravated 
and heaven-daring ? Nevertheless it is becoming 
quite common in these days, for the authorized 
expounders of eternal truth to treat that truth as a 
thing which must pliantly adjust itself to any ex- 
travagance their enthusiasm may take up. i 
every day more and more admire and adore the 
fulness of the Bible ; and I know that there is no 
form of human suffering to which it is not an anti- 
dote. But the Bible operates too slowly for our 
reformers. With them, as that brilliant ornament 
of American literature, Dr. Channing, remarked, 
" whatever be the evil opposed, it is exaggerated 
as if no other evil existed, and no guilt could be 
compared with that of countenancing it." Every 
disease they undertake, is* to their fiery zeal and 
disordered imaginations a violent one, and demands 
a violent remedy. The gospel, however, works 
always as a corrective, and its precepts forbid vio- 
lence ; those precepts must therefore be frittered 
away, or distorted ; or if this cannot be done, there 
is still one course, — it is boldly to deny that the 
original Hebrew and Greek warrant the sense 
which the translation conveys. And as their au- 
diences are generally, according to the testimony 
of Dr. Channing himself, old and young, pupils 
from schools, females hardly arrived at years of 
discretion, the ignorant, the excitable, and the im- 
petuous," this assertion is received with a credulity 
only surpassed by the " hardihood" vrith which it 

If) 



17Q DR. FULLER S LETTERS. 

was advanced. By this unhappy intemperance, 
how much has not the temperance cause suffered ! 
Nothing could satisfy the unbridled vehemence of 
the reformers, but such distortions of the word of 
God as would make all use of wine, even at the 
Lord's supper, a crime ; and the consequence has 
been unavoidable ; the enemies of that great cause 
have been furnished with formidable weapons 
against it. The true interests of the slave have 
been retarded in the same way, and by the same 
reactions. And so it will be in every cause, when- 
ever excessive zeal runs counter to the manifest 
instructions of the holy oracles. 

Discarding and rebuking the violent misconstruc- 
tion to which I have alluded, you still deny that 
slavery can be vindicated out of the Bible. I have 
already remarked on the utter irregularity of re- 
quiring me to take up this issue, when you ought 
from the Bible to make out your charge that sla- 
very is a crime. But I pass this, and, waiving my 
clear logical rights, undertake to prove the nega- 
tive, and to show that the Bible docs, most explicitly, 
both by precept and example, bear me out in my 
assertion (the only assertion I ever made) that sla- 
very is not necessarily, and ahva5^s, and amidst all 
circumstances, a sin. This is the position to be 
established, and the entire reasoning (reasoning, 
which, if the premises be true, really seems to me 
to commend itself at once to every man's con- 
science) is this. What God sanctioned in the Old 
Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot 
BE sin. 

In this proposition I assume that both Testaments 
constitute one entire canon, and that they furnish a 



DR. fuller's letters. 171 

complete rule of faith and practice. " All Scrip- 
ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profita- 
ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God 
may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
works." If, then, a work be good, we are thor- 
oughly instructed in the Bible as to it ; and have 
there reproof and correction, at once convincing us 
of any work which is evil. So complete and plain, 
too, are the sacred institutes, that God makes it the 
duty of each man, " though Paul or an angel 
preach," to compare his doctrine with the record, 
and to say, " let him be accursed if he preach any 
other gospel." Now there was a time when Ro- 
man Catholics alone refused to receive the Bible as 
the perfect rule of faith ; when Protestants read it 
on their knees with Bunyan ; and, as soon as its re- 
vealments were discovered, exclaimed, with White- 
field, in the letter before quoted, " we can have no 
doubt ;" and trembled at that declaration, " If any 
man shall add unto these things, God shall add un- 
to him the plagues that are written in this book : 
and if any man shall take away from the words of 
the book of this prophecy, God shall take away 
his part out of the book of life." Such a time, 
however, is fast getting to be no more. In Ger- 
many, even men like Neander, while they admit 
the futility of pleading apostolic authority for some 
time-honored, hereditary sanctities, yet adhere to 
them, on the ground (to use the ingenious phrase- 
ology of the present Bishop of Norwich, in his plan 
for so subscribing the articles of the Church of 
England, as to permit every body to take the oath) 
that the Scriptures have " an expansion of sense 



172 DR. fuller's letters. 

and meaning.''^ In this country it is with profouni 
grief that 1 see the same spirit at work, although 
in a more insidious shape. The present Bishop of 
London is shocked at the iniquity of his brother of 
Norwich, and angrily exclaims, '• What is this ex- 
pansion ?" " expansion with a vengeance !" and 
contends only for a " 'prudent and accommodating 
elasticity .'" And it is so in this country with re- 
gard to interpreting the Word of God. The Bible 
must have (not the German " expansion" — O no ! 
— that is too bad, and " with a vengeance" — but) 
a " prudent and accommodating elasticity," so as 
to suit itself to the mature philosophy which has 
outgrown the childish ignorance and simplicity of 
the apostles. The truth, as the primitive churches 
had it, was only inchoate. It was the germinal 
principle, which, in subsequent ages, and under the 
genial influence of reformers, should expand and 
ripen. Already do we find it the motto of all abo- 
lition harangues, and prospectuses, and papers, that 
" the times of this ignorance" (all previous times) 
" God winked at ; but now commandeth" (by them 
of course) " all men everywhere to repent." And 
I shall be forgiven for expressing my undissembled 
apprehensions lest your deservedly great reputation 
should even seem to countenance this dangerous 
tendency of fanaticism. You say — " Suppose, then, 
that slavery were permitted in the New Testament, 
and at the same time these truths at variance with 
it are inculcated, it would be evident that the per- 
mission must yield to the principle." Now, I sub- 
mit to you, that this supposition not only makes the 
Bible contradict itself, but opens the door to a flood 
of error. The " permission" is truth teaching by 



DR. fuller's letters. 173 

apostolic example. It is the contemporaneous, in- 
fallible exposition of the doctrines promulgated, and 
it is plain. The " principle" is to be known only 
by deduction and argument, in which men will 
differ. And what would be the inevitable conse- 
quence, if your system prevailed ? Why, every 
innovator would contend that he had just discovered 
" the true principle." C^est moi, would be the cry ; 
and enthusiasts, flaming and furious — hierophants, 
chafing and rampant, would rave, recite, and mad- 
den round the land, all armed with their " princi- 
ples," to which the clear permission of God must 
yield ; and each imitating one of the early fathers, 
who, whenever hard-pressed by an antagonist, was 
accustomed to cut the debate short by declaring that 
God had lately vouchsafed him a fresh revelation. 
Nor is your theory defended by referring to poly- 
gamy in the Old Testament. We shall presently 
see if that case does not make conclusively against 
you. It applies not, however, here, since your rule 
of interpretation is for the whole Bible. That I 
may not do you injustice, I will quote your illus- 
tration : " You may give your child, if he were 
approaching to years of discretion, permission to 
do an act, while you teach him principles which 
forbid it, for the sake of teaching him to be gov- 
erned by principles rather than by any direct enact- 
ment." Now, in all kindness, would this be pa- 
rental fidelity ? and is it not a shrewd presumption 
against a cause that it requires such an illustration ? 
A father sees around him children who depend 
wholly on his instructions for the knowledge of 
what is right. He sees them growing up in the 
commission of a sin ; living in this sin ; and dying 

15* 



174 DR. fuller's letters. 

in this sin. Yet he not only does not " restrain 
them," (which was the guilt of Eli,) but (unlike 
Eli) he does not even remonstrate — nay, breathes 
not a word of direct disapprobation, but (as if God 
does not require children to obey their parents) 
satisfies himself with " teaching them principles 
which forbid" the sin ; — thus leaving them to prac- 
tise the sin constantly under his own eye, and with 
express permission. " In such a case you would 
expect him to obey the principle, and not avail 
himself of the permission." Not I. I should ex- 
pect the children to reason thus : " Whatever our 
father's general principles and reasonings mean, 
they do not mean that this conduct is wrong, other- 
wise he would tell us so" — and if I continued in 
this faithlessness until death, I should expect my 
family to be confirmed in the sin by my wanton 
delinquency. And, now, to think that the parent 
of this illustration is, in the argument, the Holy 
God ; and that this kindest and tenderest of fathers, 
knoioing s'm to he in itself present and eternal misery^ 
is supposed to see his poor creatures utterly blind 
and corrupt, and to hear their earnest supplications, 
" What we know not, teach thou us ;" " Lead us, 
O God, by thy truth, and make thy paths plain be- 
fore our feet;" and yet to give a revelation, not 
only not forbidding, but permitting as great a sin as 
can be conceived — my dear brother, I dare not 
proceed. I repeat it, the cause may in advance 
be pronounced wrong which requires such an illus- 
tration. 

There is another expression (over and over I 
beg your forgiveness) which I must notice, — it is 
this. " If the religion of Christ allows us to take 



DR. fuller's letters. 175 

such a license from such precepts as these, the 
New Testament would be the greatest curse that 
ever was inflicted on our race." This is not the 
place to show that your reasoning here proceeds 
on a confusion of slavery with the Roman slave- 
laws ; what I am saying is, that such sentences I 
always read with sorrow. Not but that in a dis- 
pute with an infidel the purity of the Bible is an 
overwhelming argument. The sermon on the 
mount, if all the circumstances be considered, will 
be regarded, by any profound thinker, as a greater 
miracle than the raising of Lazarus. But when 
the Scriptures have been received as a revelation, 
and the inquiry is about their meaning, how does 
it sound to afiirm authoritatively as to what they 
ought to teach ; and to designate them a great 
curse if they teach otherwise ? A word, however, 
is enough as to this. I am sure you abhor as sin- 
cerely as any man the idea that " dust and ashes," 
folly, and ignorance, and guilt, should erect a tri- 
bunal, and summon the High and Holy One to the 
bar of our puny reason, and sit in judgment upon 
his wisdom, and justice, and goodness. 

I now take up the proposition advanced, and the 
first thing I am to prove is, that God did sanction 
slavery in the Old Testament ; and here can any 
prolonged examination be required ? First, you 
admit that the patriarchs, whose piety is held up 
in the Bible for our admiration, were masters of 
slaves. Of all these holy men, Abraham was the 
most eminent. He was " the friend of God," and 
walked with God in the closest and most endearing 
intercourse ; nor can any thing be more exqui- 
sitely touching than those words, " Shall I hide 



176 DR. fuller's letters. 

from Abraham that thino; which I do?" It is the 
lanffuaire of a friend, who feels that concealment 
would wrong the confidential intimacy existing. 
The love of this venerable servant of God in his 
promptness to immolate his son, has been the theme 
of apostles and preachers for ages ; and such was 
his faith, that all who believe are called " the 
children of faithful Abraham." This Abraham, 
you admit, held slaves. Who is surprised that 
Whitelield, with this single fact before him, could 
not believe slavery to be a sin ? Yet if your de- 
finition of slavery be correct, holy Abraham lived 
all his life in the commission of one of the most 
aggravated crimes against God and man which 
can be conceived. His life was spent in outraging 
the rights of hundreds of human beings, as moral, 
intellectual, immortal, fallen creatures ; and in 
violating their relations as parents and children, 
and husbands and wives. And God not only con- 
nived at this appalling iniquity, but, in the cove- 
nant of circumcision made with Abraham, ex- 
pressly mentions it, and confirms the patriarch in 
it ; speaking of those " bought with his money," and 
requiring him to circumcise them. Why, at the 
very first blush, every Christian will cry out 
against this statement. To this, however, you 
must come, or yield your position ; and this is 
only the first utterly incredible and monstrous 
corollary involved in the assertion that slavery is 
essentially and always •' a sin of appalling magni- 
tude." 

The natural descendants of Abraham were 
holders of slaves, and God took them into special 
relation to himself. " He made known his ways 



DR. fuller's letters. 177 

unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel ;" 
and he instituted regulations for their government, 
into which he expressly incorporated a permission 
to buy and hold slaves. These institutes not only 
recognise slavery as lawful, but contain very mi- 
nute directions. It is not necessary for me to argue 
this point, as it is conceded by you. Slaves were 
held by the priests. " A sojourner of a priest, or 
an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. 
But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he 
shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house, 
they shall eat of it." (Lev. xxii. 10, 11.) They 
might be bought of the Canaanites around, or of 
strangers living among the Hebrews. " Both thy 
bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt 
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about 
you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bond- 
maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers 
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, 
and of their families that are with you, which they 
begat in your land ; and they shall be your pos- 
session." (Lev. XXV.) They were regarded as 
property, and were called " money," " possession :" 
" If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a 
rod, and he die under his hand ; he shall be surely 
punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day 
or two, he shall not be punished : for he is his 
money." (Exod. xxi. 20, 21.) They might be 
sold. This is implied in the term "money;" but 
it is plainly taken for granted : " Thou shalt not 
make merchandise of her, because thou hast hum- 
bled her." (Deut. xxi. 14.) See also Exod. xxi. 
7, 8. " And if a man sell his daughter to be a 
maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men- 



178 

servants do. If she please not her master, who 
hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her 
be redeemed : to sell her to a strange nation he 
shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceit- 
fully with her." The slavery thus expressly 
sanctioned was hereditary and perpetual : " Ye 
shall take them as an inheritance for your chil- 
dren after you, to inherit them for a possession. 
They shall be your bondmen forever." (Lev. xxv.) 
Lastly, Hebrews, if bought, were to be treated, 
not as slaves, but as hired servants, and to go free 
at the year of jubilee. " If thy brother that 
dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto 
thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond- 
servant ; but as an hired servant and as a sojourner 
shall he be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the 
year of jubilee : and then shall he depart from 
thee, both he and his children with him, and shall 
return unto his own family, and unto the posses- 
sion of his father shall he return." (Lev. xxv. 
29.) If during the Hebrew's time of service he 
married a slave, and had children, the wife and 
children w^ere not set at liberty with him. If he 
consented, he might become a slave for life : " If 
thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he 
serve : aiid in the seventh he shall go out free for 
nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go 
out by himself: if he were married, then his wife 
shall go out with him. If his master have given 
him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daugh- 
ters, the wife and her children shall be her mas- 
ter's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the 
servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my 
wife, and my children ; I will not go out free : 



DR. fuller's letters. 179 

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges : 
he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the 
door-post ; and his master shall bore his ear 
through with an awl ; and he shall serve him for- 
ever." (Exod. xxi. 2-6.) 

Such are some parts of the Mosaic institution. 
Let me add, also, that the decalogue twice recog- 
nises slavery, and forbids one Israelite to covet the 
man-servant or maid-servant of another. And, 
now, how does all this appear if your assumption 
be for a moment tenable, that slavery is as great 
a crime as can be committed ? Suppose these re- 
gulations had thus sanctioned piracy, or idolatry, 
would they ever have commanded the faith of the 
world as divine ? How conclusive this that sla- 
very is not among crimes in the estimation of man- 
kind, and according to the immutable and eternal 
principles of morality ! 

In struggling with such difficulties as these, I 
expected from you all that man could do, and I 
have not been disappointed. The apostles, how- 
ever, declared they " could do nothing against the 
truth," and with the portions of the record already 
before us, I do conceive, that either proper reve- 
rence for the Bible, or your proposition, must be 
abandoned. Nor do I perceive that your expla- 
nations bring your doctrine at all more within the 
range of probability. I believe your reasonings 
may be summed up thus : 

Plea first. — " God did not see fit to reveal his 
will on this subject, nor indeed on many others, to 
the ancient Hebrews. He made known to them 
just as much of his moral law as he chose. He 
has seen fit to enlighten our race progressive- 



180 DR. fuller's letters. 

ly, and he withheld from them his will as to sla- 
very." 

Ansiver. — It is true God has unfolded gradually 
liis plans and purposes ; but there is a great dif- 
ference between this, and his making a revelation 
expressly authorizing any thing. He did not with- 
hold from the Jews his will concerning slavery, 
but both by precept and example sanctioned it. 
The Jews had the ten commandments, which are 
an abridgment of the whole moral law ; and even 
in this slavery is recognised ; God may and does 
conceal much; but he cannot deny himself; he 
" is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot 
look on iniquity," much less expressly sanction it. 
Plea second. — The permission granted to the 
Jews was peculiar. God had authorized them to 
destroy the Canaanites ; their slaves were to be 
only of these Canaanites thus devoted to destruc- 
tion ; and the authority to hold slaves was a part 
of this grant ; but it is not true that what God 
sanctioned among the Hebrews, he sanctions for 
all men and at all times. 

Aiiswer. — It has never been pretended that any 
man can claim under a erant but those to whom , 
the grant was made ; nor was any one ever so 
silly as to affirm that because Jehovah authorized 
the Jews to hold the Canaanites as slaves, there- 
fore we might enslave the Canaanites. But it is 
affirmed that the moral character of actions is im- 
mutable ; that sin is always " the abominable thing 
which God hates;" that if slavery be essentially 
and necessarily a sin, it was a sin among the He- 
brews ; and that it is impiety to say that God, at 
any time, or in any place, gave his express sane- 



DR. fuller's letters. 181" 

tion to sin. If the character and will of God, and 
what he approves, and permits, and condemns, are 
not illustrated by his dealings with individuals and 
nations, then, almost the whole of both Testaments 
is useless now. The ten commandments were 
delivered to the Hebrews ; the addresses of Christ 
were to his audiences ; and the instructions of the 
epistles were to particular churches. This is the 
answer. 

Besides, there is inaccuracy in your premises. 
You say, " This grant was made to one people 
only, the Hebrews. It had respect to one people, 
and to one people only, the Canaanites." Not so. 
"Strangers sojourning among the Hebrews," might 
be held in bondage as well as the heathen around ; 
and Hebrews might, in your own words, " be held 
in slavery for six years ;" and they might, by their 
consent, become slaves for life. Be it remembered, 
too, that long before this, the patriarchs held slaves, 
and not under any grant. " Abimelech took sheep, 
and oxen, and men-servants, and maid-servants, 
and gave them unto Abraham." Gen. xx. 14. 
Pharaoh, too, enriched him with " sheep, and oxen, 
and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-ser- 
vants." Permit me also to say, that M. Henry 
not only does not agree v/ith you as to the right 
of enslaving being a part of the right to destroy 
the Canaanites, but thinks that slaves were not 
to be bought from the seven nations doomed to 
destruction. " They might purchase bondmen of 
the heathen nations round about them, or of those 
strangers that sojourned among them, {except of the 
seven nations to he destroyed,) and might claim a 
dominion over them, and entail them on their fam- 

16 



182 DR. fuller's letters. 

ilies, as an inheritance, for the year of jubilee 
should give no discharge to them." I pass this, 
however. My answer, as above, may be thus given 
in the syllogistic form which your letter invites : 

(1.) Whatever the holy God has expressly sane 
tioned among any people cannot be in itself a sin. 

(2.) God did expressly sanction slavery among 
the Hebrews. 

(3.) Therefore slavery cannot be in itself a sin. 

Plea third. — The Mosaic regulations were very 
different from the laws of the Southern States re- 
specting slavery. " Every one must perceive the 
unreasonableness of pleading the Jewish laws as 
authority for an institution so entirely dissimilar, 
and so forgetful of the limitations by which the 
practice was originally guarded." 

Answer. — This whole plea is founded on that 
confusion of slavery with the Southern slave-laws 
which I have so often mentioned, and which is so 
glaring. A very good argument it would be with 
our legislatures to amend our laws, and I wish you 
would urge it there. On the present issue it is 
wholly out of place. 

Plea fourth. — If God sanctioned slavery among 
the Jews, he also commanded them to " destroy 
the Canaanites;" and he commanded Saul to de- 
stroy the Amalekites. Were these commands to 
all men and at all times ? 

Answer. — No])ody is capable of drawing such 
an absurd inference. But these commands do 
prove that it is not always, and amid all circum- 
stances, a sin to take human life. And just so the 
sanction of slavery proves that it is not always and 
amidst all circumstances a sin to hold slaves. 



DR. fuller's letters. 183 

Plea fifth. — But God did in the Old Testament 
permit and regulate sin. He did permit and regu- 
late polygamy and divorce, which are sinful, and 
so pronounced by the Saviour, in Matt. xix. 3, 9. 

Answer. — (1) Slavery is declared by you to be 
in itself, and essentially, a sin, a violation of the 
eternal and unchangeable principles of right and 
wrong, or what is called, " malum in 5e." Neither 
polygamy nor divorce is in this class of actions. 
Each is only what is termed ^' ?nalu?}i proJiibitiim." 
They do not conflict with the immutable principles 
of right and wrong, but only with the relations de- 
signed at first by God between the sexes.* God 
might, then, without any impeachment of his char- 
acter, permit them ; and such subsequent permis- 
sion would overrule the original prohibition, which 
cannot be done in case of an act which is " malum 
in 56." 

(2.) But, in truth, the whole force of this plea 
recoils fatally against the proposition asserted by 
you in this argument, since polygamy and divorce 
were condemned and abolished by the New Tes- 
tament. Jesus and his apostles saw these and sla- 
very existing together, and permitted by the Mosaic 
law. It will be conceded that, if your affirmation 
be correct, there was no comparison between the 
heinousness of the practices. Polygamy and di- 
vorce are at once and forever condemned and 
forbidden ; but not a syllable is breathed against 
slavery. I confess this single view of the matter 
brings with it a conviction, which to me is over- 
whelming, that slavery is not, in itself, a sin. So 

* " From the beginning it was not so." Matt. xix. 8. 



184 DR. fuller's letters. 

great a hardship was it esteemed by the Jews not 
to be allowed the right of divorce, that, when Jesus 
restricted it to cases of adultery, the disciples said, 
" It were good then not to marry." Yet this privi- 
lege, so valued, and granted by Moses, is not spared 
for a moment ; while slavery is not only not for- 
bidden, but, as we shall see in the next letter, pei^- 
mittcd still both by precept and example. Can 
any ingenuity evade, or any power of argument 
rebut, or any candid mind deny, the consequence 
which follows irresistibly from this fact in the his- 
tory of Christ and his apostles ? 

Very affectionately, my dear brother, 
Yours in the Lord, 

R. Fuller. 



LETTER V. 
TO THE REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D 

My DEAR Brother — 

'' If slavery be a sin at all," you say, " it is a 
sin of appalling magnitude." I have attempted to 
analyze slavery, and to show that your entire defi- 
nition of it is incorrect, and involves doctrines re- 
volting to all our Christian feelings, and injurious 
to God, if the Old Testament be received as a 
revelation. I have also considered your plea, 
which is, that God did not see fit to reveal the true 
character of slavery under the patriarchal and 



185 

Mosaic dispensations. We come now to the new 
dispensation, where, of course, if slavery be " a 
sin of appalling magnitude," we shall find it ex- 
plicitly condemned ; and the more explicitly, be- 
cause the Holy One of Israel having, (according 
to your supposition,) both by his conduct to the 
patriarchs and his express precept to the Hebrews, 
permitted this great wickedness, every attribute of 
his character required now a most distinct and 
unequivocal reprobation. This, at least, you will 
concede. And you will also admit that, in deciding 
on the import of apostolic precept and practice, we 
are to construe the actions and language of the 
apostles as they would naturally be construed by 
the persons who witnessed those actions, and to 
whom that language was addressed. Nothing can 
be more utterly sophistical than the idea that we 
have any light, as to matters of pure revelation, 
which the first Christians had not. That the 
world has made prodigious progress in all the arts 
and sciences, during the last three or four centu- 
ries, we know ; and we know, too, that libraries 
on libraries have been written to elucidate the 
Scriptures. But what advantage do we derive 
from all this, in our inquiries respecting the teach- 
ings of the Bible ? Here the book is just as the 
primitive disciples had it, and not an invention 
nor discovery has added to it a single letter. And 
then, as to the volumes of commentaries and ex- 
positions, why, they have served really to perplex 
the truth. The first believers found every precept 
plain and determined, while with us, the accumu- 
lation of learned rubbish has made it difficult to 
discover the simplest matters. Each year the 

16* 



186 DR. fuller's letters. 

press groans, and the pulpit resounds, with fresh 
controversies and disquisitions, all darkening God's 
counsel, casting doubt on the plainest things, caus- 
ing that word whose " entrance giveth understand- 
ing" to be received through discoloring and dis- 
torting mediums, and enveloping in hopeless ob- 
scurity that gospel which to the meek-minded 
Christian is so full of light — such an unerring 
guide to his feet, and prompt casuist as to every 
duty. I recollect here the words of a Persian 
traveller writing from France to his friend at 
home : — " Father," said I to the librarian, " what 
are these huge volumes which fill the whole side 
of the library ?" " These," said he, "are the in- 
terpreters of the Scriptures." " There is a pro- 
digious number of them," replied I ; " the Scrip- 
tures must have been very dark formerly, and 
must be very clear at present. Do there remain 
still any doubts ? Are there now any points con- 
tested ?" " Are there ?" answered he with sur- 
prise, " are there ? There are almost as many as 
there are lines." " You astonish me," said I ; 
" what, then, have all these authors been doing ?" 
" These authors," returned he, " never searched 
the Scriptures for what ought to be believed, but 
for what they did believe themselves." But I have 
been carried away from the question before us : I 
return to it, and inquire whether under the new 
dispensation slavery was permitted. 

Now in support of the affirmative of this ques- 
tion we have, I think, argument, inference, proof, 
and demonstration ; all which I shall content my- 
self with just indicating, as I can aim in these 
papers only at making myself fully comprehended. 



DR. fuller's letters. 187 

(1.) I say, then, we have argument. And by 
this I mean that, even if the New Testament had 
not alluded to slavery at all, I should be sustained 
in denying your proposition. In the days of the 
Saviour and the apostles, this institution existed 
everywhere. And among one people, and that 
the very people to whom the gospel was first ad- 
dressed, it had been sanctioned by Jehovah himself. 
All the proudest and most hallowed associations of 
a Hebrew — all his devout meditations upon the 
simple beauty of patriarchal piety — and all the 
soul-stirring memories of the august era, when Is- 
rael's God had been Israel's immediate lawgiver, 
and had marshalled her hosts for the battle, spread- 
ing over them that terrible banner of fire and 
cloud — all recognised this institution as most an- 
cient, and resting upon authority most venerable 
and sacred. And what I say is this — that a clear 
and conclusive declaration of Jehovah's will would 
have been given, if slavery be an awful sin. 
Every conception of the character of God which 
nature and revelation inspire, at once proclaims 
this. Otherwise there is a suppressio veri, a sup- 
pression of the truth ; and this, too, in a case 
where the very thought of such conduct must 
shock us. It was not by any impalpable " spirit" 
and concealed " principles" of revelation, that 
slavery had been countenanced, but by express 
precepts. And that God should allow slavery 
still to exist, and never breathe a hint as to 
the former permission having ratified what was 
criminal, this is what I dare not believe, and 
scarcely dare utter. It is to assert that Jehovah 
first, by his conduct and express enactment, con- 



188 DR. fuller's letters. 

firmed his chosen people in a sin of appalling 
magnitude, because he saw fit to keep back the 
truth as to some things, and then completed the 
only revelation he will ever give, and assured the 
world it was complete, and still suppressed the 
truth as to this sin, and left Gentile and Jew to 
live in it, and die in it, unless they had the strange 
penetration to discover (what Jew and Gentile 
cannot now discover) that the Author of the Bible 
said one thing and meant another — and the singu- 
lar sanctity to detect, behind the plain language 
and law of God, a subtle spirit and lurking princi- 
ple which contradict that language, and condemn 
that law as a license to commit crime ! If any 
man can believe this, and thus charge God with 
mocking his poor creatures, and sporting with their 
guilt and consequent wretchedness, and trying on 
their blindness and weakness and corruption an 
experiment which he knew would prove fatal even 
to those most sincerely desirous to do his will — 
then that man can surmount the first New Testa- 
ment objection to your broad statement that sla- 
very is in itself and always a heinous sin. 

(2.) We have on the question before us not only 
argument but inference. And here I have my eye 
upon the precepts given to slaves. The New Tes- 
tament is not silent as to slavery ; it recognises 
the relation, and commands slaves to obey their 
masters ; and what I now affirm is this, that, when 
we consider the previous permission by the Old 
Testament, such commands to slaves are not only 
a suppressio veri, but a suggestio falsi — not only a 
suppression of the truth, but a suggestion of what 
is false — if slavery be a sin of appalling magni- 



DR. fuller's letters. 189 

tude. Let it be borne in mind that tlie previous 
sanction had been both by God's conduct and ex- 
press precept, and demanded, therefore, a counter- 
vailing revelation of no equivocal sort. Yet, not 
only is no condemnation uttered, but slaves are 
addressed as such, and required to obey. You 
have quoted some of these precepts. There is one 
you have omitted, and which I only cite because it 
teaches us what is faith's true estimate of things 
that are now embroiling the churches, and embit- 
tering hearts once united in love, and filling the 
sacred ministry with violent spirits, who are rio 
longer the humble preachers of Christ and him 
crucified, but the fiery apostles of headlong reform 
— haranguing their hearers on the exaggerated 
horrors of some evil to be corrected, and surpass- 
ing the martial anchorite of Amiens in the ardors 
of a crusading ambition. 

The passage I allude to, you at once recollect. 
It is very fine indeed, and when we remember the 
condition of a slave then, under a heathen master, 
there is in it a simple grandeur of thought, com- 
pared with which all the vaunted sublimity of 
Homer is unutterably mean. " Is any man called," 
says the apostle, " being circumcised ? let him not 
become uncircumcised. Is he called in uncir- 
cumcision ? let him not be circumcised. Circum- 
cision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, 
but the keeping of the commandments of God. 
Let every man abide in the same calling wherein 
he was called. Art iliou called being a servant? 
care not for it ; but if thou mayest be made free, 
use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, 
being a servant, is the Lord's freeman : likewise, 



190 

also, he that is called, being free, is Christ's ser- 
vant." 1 Cor. vii. 18-22. His ardent soul on fire 
with the great salvation, and the anticipations of 
the glory to be revealed, Paul declares that the 
true spirit of the gospel, instead of interfering with 
social relations, should cause the believer to soar 
above them ; and that the advantages and disad- 
vantages of all earthly conditions ought to be for- 
gotten and swallowed up in the thought of those 
transports and raptures to which he is hastening. 
In the verse just copied, while he says liberty is to 
be preferred to slavery, yet he adds that, in the 
light of faith, the soul alone has true value, and 
even the hardest bondage is nothing at all, the 
most cruel treatment nothing at all, not worth a 
thought, if the slave has been called to the glori- 
ous liberty of the gospel. And he classes the dis- 
tinction between master and servant in the same 
list with circumcision and uncircumcision, which 
made no sort of difference. " Hast thou been 
called," says Chrysostom, "being a slave? Care 
not for it. Continue to be a slave. Hast thou 
been called, being in uncircumcision ? Remain 
uncircumcised. Being circumcised, didst thou 
become a believer ? Continue circumcised. For 
these are no hinderances to piety. Thou art called, 
being a slave ; another, with an unbelieving wife ; 
another, being circumcised. Astonishing ! Where 
has he put slavery ? As circumcision profits not; 
and uncircumcision does no harm, so neither doth 
slavery, nor yet liberty." What gives peculiar 
importance to this passage is, that it was written 
in answer to a letter from the Corinthian church 
touching certain matters, and among them, the 



DR. fuller's letters. 191 

duty of Christians sustaining to each other the re- 
lation of master and slave. Now here, if slavery- 
be a heinous crime, would not these inquirers have 
been told so ? But we see the answer which the 
apostle, or rather which the Holy Spirit returns. 

Reverting to the precepts you cite, I remark that 
the relation of master and slave is five times re- 
cognised, and is mentioned in immediate connec- 
tion with the other domestic and civil relations, and 
the duty of obedience enjoined upon slaves, just as 
upon children, and wives, and subjects ; and if this 
be not an implied permission of the relation, I am 
at a loss how ever to draw an inference. When 
the legislature of South Carolina enacts laws re- 
quiring slaves to obey their masters, does it not 
permit slavery ? Nor do I perceive the force of 
your pleas here. (1) You say the apostles always 
add as a reason for these precepts, the relation in 
which the slave stands to Christ. I answer, the 
Bible does this as to every duty. It never de- 
grades the Christian to any rule or motive lower 
than the will and glory of God. Its language al- 
ways is, " Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever 
ye do, do all to the glory of God." "None of us 
liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 
But whether we live we live unto the Lord, and 
whether we die we die unto the Lord." "That 
God in all things may be glorified through Jesus 
Christ." "For of him, and through him, and to 
him are all things." Besides, the same reason is 
assigned for the subjection of the child, and wife, 
and citizen. " Wives, submit yourselves unto 
your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.'' Chil- 
dren, obey your parents in all things, for this is 



192 DR. fuller's letters. 

well-pleasing unto the Lord.^^ Col. iii. "Wives, 
submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto 
the Lord.'' Eph. v. " Submit yourselves to every 
ordinance of man for the Lord's sake ; whether it 
be to the king, as supreme, or to governors, as unto 
them that are sent by him for the punishment of 
evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well. 
For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye 
may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." 
1 Pet. ii. And just so as to the obedience of the 
slave : *' Servants, be obedient to them that are 
your masters according to the flesh, with fear and 
trembling, as unto Christ. Not with eye-service, 
as men-pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, 
doing the loill of God from the heart;" in which, 
and the other passages, the will of God is express- 
ly declared, that slaves obey tlieir masters, and the 
duty placed on the same principle with the other 
relative duties. (2) But, you say, the apostle only 
requires " patience, meekness, fidelity, and charity, 
duties obligatory on Christians towards all men, 
and of course towards masters;" and ask, "Do 
our obligations to practise fidelity, honesty, charity, 
to avoid purloining, lying, eye-service, depend on 
the justice of the authority which the master claims 
over the slave?" " Tlio fact," you add, "seems 
to be simply this — there are certain vices to which 
ignorant people laboring for others are specially 
liable, and the apostle only forbids these, as dis- 
honoring to Christianity." Such is your second 
plea, but I submit to you if it be not wide of the 
whole case. You omit " ohedience," which is the 
very duty enjoined. The apostle does not simply 
require the duties to which the master, in common 



DR. fuller's letters. 193 

with all men, had a claim. He commands " ohe- 
diencc/' and obedience "to their own masters," 
not to all men, nor to the masters of other slaves ; 
and the duty of obedience does depend on "the 
justice of the authority which the master claims." 
It is precisely the same inference as that by which 
the right of the husband, and parent, and governor 
is deduced from the command to the wife, and 
child, and citizen. In neither case is any injuri- 
ous conduct of the superior justified ; in one com- 
mand to servants it is condemned — but the relation 
is in each case acknowledged and ratified. The 
fact, dear brother, seems to me to be simply this : 
it never entered the apostles' minds that the au- 
thority of Christian masters was sinful, and by the 
strongest implication they confirmed it. And not 
only so, but they declared that if the master was a 
"believing master," and discharged his duty to his 
slaves, and put forth his power for good — he was 
"faithful and beloved." "And they that have 
believing masters, let them not despise them, be- 
cause they are brethren ; but rather do them ser- 
vice, because they are faithful and beloved, par- 
takers of the benefit." Such is the language of God. 
God says of such Christian masters, they are 
"faithful and beloved." My dear brother de- 
clares them guilty of a sin of appalling magnitude ; 
and the abolitionists only carry out his doctrines, 
when they excommunicate and consign to perdi- 
tion the whole South. Well might David exclaim, 
" Let me fall into the hand of the Lord, for very 
great are his mercies ; but let me not fall into the 
hand of man" — even the kindest and best man.* 

* While writing tliis, a number of my sp»-vants Jiave come 

17 



194 DR. fuller's letters. 

(3.) Wishful to avoid every appearance of at- 
tributing lo my reasoning more force than it pos- 
sesses, I have called my first view only an argu- 
ment, and my last only an inference, — leaving it 
to every candid reader to say, if I might not have 
designated each, and especially the latter, proof, 
and convincing proof. I come now to what I have 
announced as proof on the question before us. It 
is the precepts to masters. And here let it be still 
remembered, that the Old Testament is constantly 
referred to by the apostles as of divine origin, and 
that there slavery had by express precept been 
sanctioned ; and I put it to any one whether the 
precepts to masters, enjoining of course their whole 
duty, and not requiring, not exhorting them to 
emancipate their slaves, are not conclusive proof 
that the apostles did not consider (and, as a New 
Testament precept is for all ages, that no one is 
now justified in denouncing) slaveholding as a sin. 
These precepts are so regardful of the slave that 
they even require the master to " forbear threaten- 
ing," yet not an intimation as to emancipation. 
These precepts were to men anxious to know the 
whole will of God, and ready to die (as multitudes 
did die) rather than commit sin, and who were not 
prevented by law, as we are, from giving liberty 

into my stud}', to tell me what God has done for their souls. 
*' It rejoiced my soul,"' said Whitefield, " to hear that one 
of my poor negroes in Carolina was made a brother in 
Christ." How would his Jieart iiave overflowed, if, like 
many masters in these days, he had seen almost all his 
slaves brothers, and happy in the Lord ! I do not know 
whctiier this note should be printed. However, I rejoice, 
yea, and will rejoice, and what I have written is written, 
and I will let it remain. 



DR. fuller's letters. 195 

to their bondmen. Yet the apostles do not even 
insinuate that slaveholding is a sin. The apostles 
solemnly took heaven to witness that they had 
"kept back nothing ;" and in addressing, not only 
the people, but the pastors who were to teach the 
people, and bequeath their ministry to their succes- 
sors, they asserted tlieir purity from the blood of 
all men, because they "had not shunned to declare 
the whole counsel of God." Yet they had shun- 
ned even to hint to masters that they were living 
in a " sin of appalling magnitude ;"' and had kept 
back truth, which, if you are right, was of tremen- 
dous importance. Lastly, a whole epistle (to which 
you do not allude) was addressed to a pious master 
whom Paul styles a " brother dearly beloved ;" 
and its entire contents were about his slave. This 
letter was written, too, when the apostle styles him- 
self " Paul the aged," sixty or seventy years after 
the first promulgation of the gospel, and when sure- 
ly the spirit and principles you speak of ought to 
have begun to operate. And, now, what does this 
epistle teach us ? I will let McKnight answer this 
question. He says, " Onesimus, a slave, on some 
disgust, having run away from his master, Phile- 
mon, came to Rome, and falling into want, as is 
supposed, he applied to the apostle," &;c. " After 
his conversion, Onesimus abode with the apostle, 
and served him with the greatest assiduity and af- 
fection. But being sensible of his fault in running 
away from his master, he wished to repaii' that in- 
jury by returning to him. At the same time being 
afraid that on his return his master would inflict on 
him the punishment which, by the law or custom 
of Phrygia, was due to a fugitive slave, and which, 



196 DR. FULLER S LETTERS. 

as Grotius says, he could inflict without applying 
to any magistrate, he besought the apostle to write 
to Philemon requesting him to forgive and receive 
him again into his family," &c. " To account for 
the solicitude which the apostle showed in this af- 
fair, we must not, with some, suppose that Philemon 
was keen and obstinate in his resentments, but rath- 
er, that having a number of slaves, on whom the 
pardoning of Onesimus too easily might have had a 
bad effect, he might judge some punishment neces- 
sary, for a warning to the rest, &c. The apostle 
would by no means detain Onesimus without Phile- 
mon's leave ; because it belonged to him to dispose 
of his own slave in the way he thought proper. 
Such was the apostle's regard to justice and to the 
rights of mankind !" 

(4.) The demonstration furnished on this ques- 
tion, I need only mention ; it is the baptism by the 
apostles of slaveholders, and the admission of them 
into the churches. Before baptism they required 
men to repent, that is, to abandon all their sins ; 
yet they baptized masters holding slaves. They 
fenced the Lord's table with the most solemn warn- 
ings that men should examine themselves, and that 
to eat and drink unworthily was to eat and drink 
condemnation ; yet they admitted to the supper 
masters holding slaves. They declared that " with- 
out holiness no man could see the Lord," and at 
once condemned all the darling sins of the day. 
Idolatry- was interwoven with the very elements of 
society, yet they spared it not, but at the sight of 
•' a city given to idolatry" their " spirits were stir- 
red," and they told the people plainly that they 
worshipped devils. They abhorred the thought 



DR. fuller's letters. 197 

that " the temple of God could have any agree- 
ment with idols ;" and stigmatized idolatry as one 
of the " works of the flesh," " as to which," said 
they, " we tell you before, as we have told you in 
limes past, that they which do such things shall not 
inherit the kingdom of God." Voluptuousness 
reigned in city and country, and even philosophers 
considered it innocent ; but the heralds of Christ 
assailed it everywhere. In a word, going in the 
strength of the Lord God, they, with lion-hearted 
dauntlessness, struck at and warred with the super- 
stitions of the Gentiles and the prejudices of the 
Jews. They attacked the passions of the vulgar 
and the pride of the noble. They defied the priests, 
and confronted the Sanhedrim, and thundered be- 
fore unjust and licentious princes -'of righteousness, 
and temperance, and judgment to come." Yet as 
to slavery, they not only never forbade it, but 
received believing masters into the churches, and 
declared them " faithful and beloved" brethren in 
Christ Jesus. After this shall I be told that they 
considered slaveholding as a sin of appalling char- 
acter, and meant it to be condemned by some covert 
and slow spirit or principle of their teaching ? Is 
this supposable ? Is it possible 1 Does it even 
verge towards possibility ? Did they thus treat any 
infraction of God's law ? And what would we say, 
I ask again, if our missionaries should thus act to- 
wards idolaters and fornicators in heathen lands ? 
To put a case not half so strong as that here made 
out, let me suppose it could be proved that the 
apostles baptized children, would not that litigated 
question be at once settled ? Yet then it might be 
urged that the very New Testament idea of a 

17* 



198 DR. fuller's letters. 

Christian church requires its members to be be. 
lievers, and that the only commission to baptize ex- 
eludes infants ; whereas, in the instance before us 
we have clear, universal, apostolic practice, and 
not only no command with which it clashes, but 
the previous precepts and dealings of God all in 
conformity with it. If any one with all this — this 
argument, and inference, and proof, and demon- 
stration — before him, still doubts, why then no 
good can come to that man from farther discus- 
sion. But it is impossible. So incurable a skeptic 
does not live, and my proposition is established, 
that slavery was sanctioned in the Old Testament, 
and permitted in the New Testament. If, how- 
ever, slavery was sanctioned in the Old, and per- 
mitted in the New Testament, it is not a sin ; and 
he who says it is, will answer to God whom he af- 
fronts, and not to me. You and I cannot, I know, 
differ as to the impiety of such a charge. 

My letters are becoming, I fear, quite too long for 
your patience or the attention of our readers. I will 
conclude this by adverting as briefly as possible to 
the consequences which you think must follow if 
the New Testament permitted slavery. Now, to 
all objections of this kind, my dear brother will 
recollect that inspiration supplies one proper and 
compendious answer : " Nay, but who art thou, O 
man, that repliest against God ?" The Christian, 
however, need not fear that the teaching of the 
Holy Spirit can ever be found to inculcate doc- 
trines at variance with truth or piety, and, there- 
fore, he may be confident that all attempts to fasten 
upon the Scriptures any error in science, moral or 
physical, must fail. Nor is my humble assurance 



DR. fuller's letters. 199 

shaken by your objections. Those objections may 
be condensed thus. 

Objection first. — If the New Testament per- 
mitted slavery among Christians in the apostles' 
days, then it permitted all the atrocities and enor- 
mities of Roman slavery, if the master only for- 
bore threatening, and gave his slave suitable phy- 
sical comforts as the reward of his toil ; for this 
is all that the precepts to masters required. 

Answer. — Here is a manifest confusion of sla- 
very with the Roman slave-laws. What you af- 
firm is, that slavery is always a sin. But slavery 
may exist, and did exist, among " faithful and be- 
loved" Christian masters in apostolic times, and 
does exist now, without any of the horrors legal- 
ized by the Roman code. The gospel condemns 
cruelty, oppression, and injustice. It, therefore, 
denounced the system of servitude allowed among 
the Romans ; and, moreover, by expressly enforc- 
ing justice, and reciprocal rights, and reminding 
the master of his subjection and accountability to 
God, it altered entirely the relations of the parties. 
The case is analogous to that of the Roman des- 
potism. Indeed, Dr. Channing uses the very ex- 
ample, when he says, that if the Bible precepts to 
slaves sanctioned slavery, then the precepts to sub- 
jects sanctioned all the tyranny of the reigning 
emperor, the tiger Nero. Let us now suppose that 
the apostles had not only enjoined subjection to 
rulers, but that one of the Csesars having been 
converted and received into the church as a brother 
" faithful and beloved," an epistle had been ad- 
dressed to him, exhorting him " to give unto his 
subjects things which are just and equal, and to 



200 DR. fuller's letters. 

remember that he also had a King in heaven :" — 
what would this prove ? It would establish con- 
clusively the proposition that despotic power is not 
in itself a sin; but would it justify the profligate 
and sanguinary reigns of Tiberius, and Caligula, 
and Nero, or the crimes which the royal penitent 
himself might have formerly committed by the 
abuse of his power ? And this supposed case is 
exactly the fact as to slavery. The precepts and 
example of the apostles settle the point that slave- 
holding is not in itself a sin ; but they did not, and 
do not, sanction any abuse of the master's power ; 
and had a master been guilty of cruelty or injus- 
tice to his slaves, the apostles would never have 
suffered him to continue in the communion of the 
church, much less would they have pronounced 
him " faithful and beloved." 

Ohjection second. — A gospel permission is a 
general permission ; and if the New Testament 
permitted slavery formerly it permits it now ; nay, 
it sanctions the slave-trade, and " I should be as 
much justified in sending a vessel to Africa, mur- 
dering a part of the inhabitants of a village, and 
making slaves of the rest, as I should be in hunt- 
ing a herd of wild animals, and either slaying 
them or subjecting them to the yoke." 

Ansioer. — Jesus and his apostles found slavery 
existing as a part of the social organization. 
Should they appear now, they would find the same 
institution here. They did not declare it to be a 
sin, but by precept and example permitted it to 
continue ; making it, however, a relation not of 
oppression and crime, but of justice and love. And 
they would act now just as they acted then ; or 



DR. fuller's letters. 201 

rather, they are here in the gospel, and are now 
doing what they then did. If you can show that 
they permitted Christians to murder and hunt down 
men, and rend them from their homes and fami- 
lies, and stupify and imbrute their intellects, and 
destroy their souls, then you may plead that a gos- 
pel permission is a general permission, and that 
the permission of slavery is a license for every 
abominable barbarity. It will be time enough 
then for me to reply to this objection. You admit 
that the New Testament authorizes government. 
Suppose, now, one should thus reason. " The 
government in the apostles' days was a military 
despotism. If then the Bible justifies government, 
it justifies a citizen of the United States in be- 
coming, if he can, a military despot ; nay more, 
it sanctions the whole system of Roman conquest 
and tyranny ; and I should be justified in planting 
my armed heel upon the necks of all the sove- 
reigns of Europe, and trampling upon all the na- 
tions of the earth, and wading to a throne through 
seas of blood, and then wielding the sceptre for 
purposes of lust, and rapine, and ferocity." What 
would you say to such an argument ? Yet it is 
exactly your objection to the New Testament per- 
mission of slavery. The very condition of a de- 
vout man, placed by birth under the responsibili- 
ties of a master, causes him to admire that wisdom 
of God which in the Bible shines with such lustre 
for all times and places. To him, as to you, the 
atrocities you mention are most revolting. But he 
feels, dear brother, what you do not, 1 mean the 
difficulties of his very solemn position ; and after 
seeking most earnestly to know his duty, he per- 



202 DR. fuller's letters. 

ceives that the gospel prescribes for him in this 

situation, (as for all men in every emergency,) 
that course which, faithfully pursued, would insure 
at once the peace of society, and the best temporal 
and spiritual interests of the individual. 

Last ohjection. — If the Bible permits slavery, it 
cannot be said to correct its abuses, for " where 
shall we find the precept ?" " Where have we 
ever known the New Testament to be called 
upon to decide the question, what constitutes the 
proper use, and what the abuse of the institution 
of slavery ?" 

Answer. — No master, with the Bible before him, 
will ever be able to plead at the bar of God any 
obscurity on this point. The express precepts are 
full, nor do I think your paraphrase gives by any 
means their import. The New Testament solemnly 
calls upon a master whose power was irresponsi- 
ble, to " remember," in all his conduct to his ser- 
vant, " that he had a Master in heaven," who would 
judge him. For slaves, who in the eye of the law 
had no rights, the New Testament claimed, " that 
which was just and equal," — not merely " suitable 
physical comforts," — but whatever was equitable, 
and due to one intelligent, social, immortal being, 
standing; in such a relation to another. In a word, 
the command to masters is a special application of 
the rule, " Whatsoever ye would that others do 
unto you, do ye also to them." And the very ap- 
plication of it by the apostles, proves that they did 
not regard it as requiring the emancipation of the 
slave ; but (to use the words of Neander) as " im- 
parting to masters such a knowledge of their du- 
ties to their slaves, and such dispositions towards 



DR. fuller's letters. 203 

them, and as teaching them so to recognise as 
brethren those who were among their slaves, as to 
make the relation quite a different thing." 
Very affectionately, my dear brother, 
Yours, &c., 

R. Fuller. 



LETTER VI. 

TO THE REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D. 

My DEAR Brother — 

So far from being offended at your plainness of 
speech, I see in it only that smiting of the righteous 
which is a kindness, and receive it as a proof of 
the esteem with which you have always honored 
me. And you, in return, will suffer my boldness, 
when I ask you whether truth ever requires, or is 
advanced by, exaggeration, and whether the sweep- 
ing charge I am combating be not a manifest ex- 
aggeration, that must be abandoned, and which in 
effect you do abandon ? I am not unmindful of 
the distinctions of charity you make in your third 
letter, and I know that charity covereth the multi- 
tude of sins. But no charity can devise a dis- 
tinction by which a man may live knowingly in the 
commission of a sin of appalling magnitude, and 
be free from its guilt ; no affection — not even self- 
love — can invent a refinement by which one may 
inflict on others as great a wrong as can be con- 



204 DR. fuller's letters. 

ceived, and do it for their benefit ; all which I 
understand you several times to suppose. I will 
not, however, dwell on this matter. If you still 
adhere to your assertion, that slavery, in itself, 
and always, and everywhere, was, and is, a sin of 
appalling magnitude, then there is nothing left for 
us but to pray for each other, and to love each 
other, and to recollect always the diffidence and 
forbearance becoming those who now '• know 
but in part." I write, and have written, with my 
health, as well as the patience of our readers, ad- 
monishing me to stop. But the subject is too im- 
portant ; and, moreover, a committee is soon to 
meet in your city, upon whose decision will de- 
pend the co-operation of Northern and Southern 
Baptists in any Christian enterprise. Of course 
Southern ministers are the proper missionaries to 
the colored population. If, then, the monstrous 
proposition be sustained, that they are all unfit to 
be employed in the Home Mission Society, and the 
prescriptive spirit of a few Northern enthusiasts 
thus annul a constitution under which our fathers 
have acted so long and happily, you readily fore- 
see the consequences. Never again shall we as- 
semble in any society. The spirit of fanaticism 
will exult in the accomplishment of its baleful 
plans. And one of the largest and noblest bodies 
of Christians ever constituted for the glory of God, 
will at once be broken into fragments — not hostile, 
I hope, but forever irreconcilable. That the 
great enemy of Christ will exhaust all his devices 
to secure such a result, no one can doubt. He 
has suffered too much from our assaults, not to 
long for such ample revenge. But who can love 



DR. fuller's letters. 205 

the Redeemer, or the heathen, without deprecating 
this disastei', and wishing to avert it ? Nor do I 
see how disruption can be avoided, and peace and 
harmony permanently established, unless upon the 
basis that our associations are agents strictly lim- 
ited in their trusts and operations, and never to be 
perverted by any of the principals into engines of 
inquisition and annoyance. 

In this correspondence it only now remains that 
I notice one or two arguments advanced by you ; 
gladly assenting when I can, and when I venture 
to dissent, doing so with reluctance. 

(1.) And first, as to expediency, it is unneces- 
sary to examine how far anybody might have a 
single grain of a scruple about all you advocate. 
But how can your theories shelter the apostles, if 
they were guilty of the conduct you attribute to 
them ? Whether the word " expediency" be good 
English in the evil sense now generally attached 
to it, I need not inquire. It is very good Ameri- 
can ; and as such we will use it, meaning thereby 
a truckling and trimming so as to make the princi- 
ples of right and wrong comply with circumstances. 
And now, thus defined, was there ever expediency 
n?ore abominable than that practised by the apos- 
tles, if your supposition be correct ? If they knew 
slavery to be a sin of appalling magnitude, it was 
their duty to condemn it. They were bound to 
dismiss all unworthy comparison between two 
evils, and, rejecting all evil, to do the will of God, 
and leave consequences to him. The abolitionists 
feel themselves under sacred obligation to denounce 
slavery, and rather tear society to pieces than rest 
while the horrid sin is committed on the earth. 

18 



206 

My brother has " long felt that he owed a debt of 
humanity and cliarity to his Christian brethren at 
the South, both free and enslaved. He has desired 
to bear his testimony in favor of those whom he 
believed to be suffering the greatest injustice, and 
to bear it in the presence of those, many of whom 
lie believes, through erroneous views of the teach- 
ing of the Scriptures, to be responsible to God for 
that injustice." And he feels this, I know, most 
sincerely and affectionately, although he has pub- 
lished against the idea that responsibility rests upon 
the North. What then ? Were Jesus Christ and 
the apostles less compassionate and faithful ? 
Consider, too, the ofRce intrusted to the apostles. 
Their precepts and example were to furnish to all 
ages a pattern. Or rather, let me forget them, 
and say, that what they spake the Holy Ghost ut- 
tered, and what they did the Holy Spirit prompted ; 
and we have seen what they spake and what they 
did as to slaveholders. And now, I ask, how 
could these apostles indignantly repel the thought 
of " doing evil that good might come" — nay, how- 
can they escape the charge of having done evil 
by which evil has come — if you are right ? If 
you are right they did evil, and evil such as no 
other men ever did : evil to the slaves, they were 
faithless to them — evil to the Christian masters, 
they were faithless to them — evil to the churches, 
they were faithless to the churches — evil to the 
world around, they were faithless to the world — 
evil to the gospel, they were faithless to the gospel 
— in fme, evil to posterity, they were faithless to 
posterity, down to January, 1845, as this very dis- 
cussion testifies. 



DR. FULLER S LETTERS. 207 

(2.) You affirm, however, that although the 
apostles did not condemn slavery by express pre- 
cept, they did so by the inculcation of truths that 
must abolish slavery. As to which allegation, oc- 
cupying the ground I now do, it would be quite 
enough for me to reply, that no matter what truths 
the apostles taught, if they received slaveholders 
into the churches, and pronounced them '•^faithful 
and ieloved,'' they put to silence the charge that 
slaveholding is always and everywhere a sin. 

If you had said that the gospel, wherever re- 
ceived, at once eradicated the Roman system of 
slavery, and made the relation " a very different 
thing;" and if you had added, that everywhere 
the gospel requires of a master the moral and in- 
tellectual improvement of his slaves ; I at least 
should have had no controversy with you. Then, 
too, while Christians at the South are enjoined to 
perform their solemn duty, the good and the wise 
through the Union might consult in the spirit of a 
prospective and far-seeing philanthropy, as to the 
designs of God for the African race. But the 
proposition defended by you has no connection with 
all this. Slavery is averred by you to be always, 
and every moment, a sin of appalling magnitude. 
And if this be so, I do not see how you can either 
respect the apostles, or censure the most vehement 
abolitionists. 

The discrepancy between pious men, as to the 
teachings of so plain a book as the Bible, on the 
subject of slavery, is owing, I humbly apprehend, 
to our overlooking the obvious distinction to be 
made between the gospel, viewed as a civil code, 
and the gospel, viewed as a rule of Christian duty. 



208 DR. fuller's letters. 

In the former sense Christianity operates indirect- 
ly, through the spirit of its precepts, and the char- 
acter of its professors. And its beneficial effects 
thus produced — the blessings it scatters in its path 
to immortality — how noble ! The spirit of peaco 
and justice infused into society, and by this the 
appeal to arms fast becoming, among nations aei 
well as individuals, a barbarous and obsolete wick-' 
edness and absurdity. The spirit of love blending 
with every relation, civil and domestic ; and by 
this, tyranny and cruelty mitigated, and govern- 
ments converted into engines for human happiness, 
and women exalted to their true station, and purity 
and sanctity diffused through all the walks of pri- 
vate life ; in a word, the spirit of religion every- 
where expelling idolatry, and its obscenities and 
horrors. These are a few of the fruits of Christi- 
anity, regarded as a civil code for all nations. 
And in acting thus upon the world, and reaching 
and reforming political abuses, or public institu- 
tions, the gospel operates gradually and indirectly, 
by the announcement of a few grand truths, and 
chiefly through the influence of Christian charac- 
ter in individuals. In no other way could it ope- 
rate for all times and places ; and in no other way 
would we expect it to operate. The object of the 
gospel is to turn the heart from sin to holiness. Its 
direct business is never with masses, but individ- 
uals ; and its aim is the conversion, and sanctifi- 
cation, and salvation of the soul. The revolutions 
it achieves in social manners and establishments, 
are only secondary effects : and therefore the ope- 
ration of the gospel as to these is indirect and sec- 
ondary. 



DR. fuller's letters. 209 

But as a perfect rule of duty for each Christian, 
making the man of God thoroughly furnished to 
every good work, the gospel does not act indirect- 
ly, but by express command and prohibition, and 
these given dogmatically. Conversion to God is 
the submission of the heart and life to all his holy 
will. The language of the renewed soul is, " Lord, 
what wilt thou have me to do?" And, dealing 
with Christians, the apostles at once condemned all 
sin, and never, in any instance, permitted them to 
live and die in iniquity, keeping back from them 
the knowledge of its true character. Indeed, as 
the gospel acts upon any established and public 
evil chiefly through the influence and character 
of individuals, it is self-evident that upon individ- 
uals it must exert a direct, and thorough, and un- 
compromising, and immediate energy. Otherwise 
its entire object will be defeated. Its primary 
purpose is the holiness and salvation of the indi- 
vidual ; but if the individual be allowed to live and 
die in sin, this purpose is defeated. The secon- 
dary design of the gospel is, the removal of social 
and political evil by the purifying influence of in- 
dividual character ; but if the individual charac- 
ter of the Christian be blackened by sin, and his 
participation in the evil confirm the world in it, 
then this design is defeated. 

I will illustrate my meaning, and for this pur- 
pose let me suppose myself convinced that slavery 
is a heinous sin. Now, what would be my duty 
as to the members of the Beaufort church ? In 
your seventh letter, while assigning reasons why 
the apostles did not directly condemn slavery by 
precept, you say, " Is not this the almost universal 

18* 



210 DR. fuller's letters. 

method of the New Testament teaching ? Do you 
not, my brother, so interpret it? When you at- 
tempt to teach men that they are sinners against 
God, do you enumerate the precepts which they 
have broken, or do you set before them the char- 
acter of God and their universal relations to him ?" 
Suppose, then, I should imitate your apostles, and 
adopt your New Testament method of teaching, and 
never breathe a hint as to slavery being a sin, and 
receive slaveholders into the church, and call 
them "faithful and beloved," would I be the ser- 
vant of Christ ? And would it not be most absurd 
for me to expect, that, by moral essays on the 
Sabbath, I could counteract the force of my per- 
fidious conduct to the church ; or that, through 
the church, I could ever act upon the system 
established by law ? In fact, in the very letter 
after your seventh you say, " I do believe that even 
now it is the duty of every Christian in the slave- 
holding states, to bear his testimony against this 
enormous wrong." But how is this? Are not 
the New Testament method of teaching, and the 
apostolic example, the best guides I can follow ? 

(3.) "But," it is said, " the times are changed 
— our circumstances are not those in which the 
apostles lived." And it is in this argument I de- 
tect what, I confess, fills me with grief and alarm. 
"The times are changed." What then? Who 
but sees the inference ? It is that the gospel must 
have an expansion or elasticity, so as to adjust it- 
self to the times. But what if the gospel can by 
no torture be framed and bent to what anybody 
and everybody chooses to call "the times?" 
Why, then, the gospel is eflfete, and obsolete, and 



DR. fuller's letters. 211 

must be discarded, as it has been by many of the 
abolitionists. 

I need not say, my dear brother, that I know 
you detest and abjure such conclusions. But they 
are, and must be, the results of any doctrine which 
regards the instructions and examples of the Bible 
as of private or local interpretation. Moreover, 
while I enter my most solemn protest against this 
doctrine, I also deny the premises on which it 
rests. I deny that there is any such difference 
between our condition here, and that of Christians 
in the days of Paul, as is affirmed. It is not pre- 
tended that there is any want of correspondence 
between our circumstances and theirs, except in 
two particulars mentioned by you. The first of 
which is, that we make our own laws ; and the 
second, that we possess superior moral light. 

Now it is evident, that, in the present discussion, 
the first distinction is of no consequence ; since it 
is not of the slave-laws, but of slavery, I am 
speaking ; and the character of this, according to 
the eternal principles of morality, is not affected 
by any human enactments. 

Is it true, then, that a Christian at the South 
possesses greater advantages than a Christian in 
apostolic times, for ascertaining his duty ? If he 
does, whence does he derive them ? Not from 
natural religion ; for I venture to affirm that nei- 
ther Paley, nor any writer on natural theology, 
has advanced a single idea which had not been 
advanced long before the Christian era. And as 
to revealed religion, I repeat, what I said before, 
that a converted master in Corinth, or Galatia, or 
Rome, had the very same scriptures. And he had, 



212 DR. fuller's letters. 

too, the living, inspired apostles — enjoying, in their 
personal presence and instruction, an advantage, 
which no succeeding age has known, and which, 
we feel, would at this moment terminate, not only 
this dispute, but a great many others. I protest, 
then, against any permission given to men, to 
tamper with the word of God on the plea that the 
times are changed. And I deny, too, that my 
means of deciding on the moral character of sla- 
very are superior to those whicli Timothy and 
Philemon enjoyed — the latter of whom was a slave- 
holder, and confirmed in slaveholding by Paul — 
and the former was enjoined, as an evangelist, to 
inculcate precepts, and pursue a line of conduct, 
utterly at variance with the doctrine that slave- 
holding is itself, and always, a heinous crime. 

(4.) " But omniscient wisdom," you say, " has 
chosen, in imparting moral truth, to teach, not by 
express prohibition and precept, but by principle ; 
and if slavery had been singled out from all other 
sins, and had alone been treated preceptively, the 
whole system would have been vitiated. We 
should have been authorized to inquire, why were 
not similar precepts in other cases delivered, and 
if they were not delivered, we should have been at 
liberty to conclude that they were intentionally 
emitted, and that the acts which they would have 
forbidden, were innocent." I ask, however, when 
and where has omniscient wisdom chosen this 
method of condemning sin 1 I do not stop to in- 
quire why, if omniscient loisdom selects this mode 
of condemning slavery, my brother and others at 
the North are dissatisfied with it, and feel them- 
selves bound to be more direct and explicit ? But 



DR. fuller's letters. 213 

I appeal to the prophets, and ask, whether they 
ever saw sin of appalling magnitude practised in 
the world and among God's people, and connived 
at it in their entire conduct, and satisfied them- 
selves with indirect and inferential condemnation ? 
And I appeal to the Saviour's ministry, and to the 
ministry of the apostles, and repel at once the im- 
putation of such unfaithfulness. You say, God 
does not teach by precept. But what does God 
say ? " Precept must he upon precept, precept upon 
precept.'^ Isa. xxviii. 

Let me take for instance, idolatry. Now we 
all know that this is not merely an erroneous 
creed, but a system of practical falsehood, pene- 
trating and pervading society, and so incorporated 
into its very fabric, and interwoven with all estab- 
lished usages, natural, and social, and domestic, 
that, to rend a people away from idolatry, is de- 
clared by God to be a work of surpassing difficul- 
ty. " Pass over the isles of Chittim, and see, and 
send unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if 
there he such a thing. Hath a nation changed their 
gods?^' Yet we find how the gospel dealt with 
idolatry. It assailed every form and ramification 
of it ; separating converts at once and forever from 
the practice ; and, through them, reaching the in- 
stitution, and attacking it vigorously and unremit- 
tingly. Your remark, then, about "singling out," 
turns against you. For, if slavery be a heinous 
sin, the truth is, that God has directly and ex- 
pressly denounced all other prominent forms of 
sin, but, " singled this out," and acted towards it 
" anomalously," you say, in the Old Testament, 
and still more anomalously, I add, in the New. 



214 

You have eloquently described the gross darkness 
which covered the earth, and the effulgence poured 
upon this darkness by the gospel. The truths 
thus revealed, however, affected every modifica- 
tion of wrong, and served the apostles as weapons 
mighty througli God, with which to attack sin in 
every shape. With these weapons they did ex- 
tirpate at once from among Christians the Roman 
system of slavery, (and let me say, too, that with 
these arms they are now contending against the 
Southern abuses of slavery,) but slavery itself — 
softened, and so entirely changed by Christianity, 
that the relation between the parties was one of 
justice and love — they not only did not attack, but 
permitted, both by their precepts and conduct. 

(5.) "But," you urge, "the most effectual way 
of forbidding sin, is not by express precept and 
prohibition, but by inculcating moral principles at 
variance with it." To which opinion I can only 
reply, that neither human nor divine wisdom ap- 
pears to me to concur with you. Not human wis- 
dom ; since all nations find it necessary to enact 
laws, and I dare say, even in Brown University a 
code has been established for the students. A 
government which should simply adopt a constitu- 
tion, proclaiming a few general principles, and ex- 
pect the people to be regulated by their spirit, 
would soon be wofuUy convinced of its delusion. 
" A simple precept or proliihition is of all tilings the 
easiest to he evaded.''' If this be so, then legisla- 
tion is folly, and the acts annually passed by our 
representatives are only so many provisions for the 
easier evasion of justice. " Lord Eldon used to 
say, that no man in England could construct an act 



DR. fuller's letters. 215 

of parliament through which he could not drive a 
coach and four. ^^ Suffer me, however, as a law- 
yer, to assure you, that both in England and 
America statutes have been constructed, through 
which all the subtlety of Lord Eldon could not 
have driven a single culprit ; and if that nobleman 
had committed forgery, or treason, he would in- 
evitably have found liimself, not driving through 
an act of parliament, but driven by it into the 
tower, and thence to the scaffold. " We find this 
to have heen illustrated by the case of the Jews in the 
time of our Saviour. The Pharisees, who prided 
themselves on their strict obedience to the letter, vio- 
lated the spirit of every precept of the Mosaic code.^' 
What does this illustrate ? Certainly not your 
proposition, since it shov/s that the spirit is readily 
violated, when the express letter cannot be. Or, 
if you mean by this example to elucidate the supe- 
rior binding efficacy of general principles, then, to 
my apprehension, your argument stands thus : 
" The Pharisees, who prided themselves on their 
strict obedience to the letter, violated the spirit of 
every precept of the Mosaic code ;" it would, there- 
fore, Jiave been wiser, and a more effectual re- 
straint on the Pharisees, if the precepts of the 
Mosaic code had never been given at all. To 
settle this point at once, suppose there had been in 
the Bible an express command against slavehold- 
ing, could the present controversy exist between 
us for a moment ? Good men may not require 
precepts in many cases. But laws are made for 
the lawless and disobedient ; and if there be no 
laws, why, the most carefully framed general prin- 
ciples will, in the administration of justice, prove 



^ 



216 DR. fuller's letters. 

to be only " barren generalities," and possess 
scarcely more practical tenacity and cogency for 
the conviction of a criminal, than one of Euclid's 
problems. 

'' And be these juggling fiends no more believed, 
That palter with us in a double sense, 
That keep the word of promise to our ear, 
And break it to our hope." 

This jugglery — how constantly do we find artful 
men succeeding in it, when rights are protected 
merely by abstractions. And though the passions 
will still attempt evasion, however explicit the pre- 
cept, yet it is plain, that by special precept and 
prohibition alone, can all paltering in a double 
sense be prevented, and duties and obligations be 
at once unambiguously defined, and unequivocally 
enforced. 

Human wisdom and experience do not sustain 
your position. Nor does the divine wisdom act 
upon it. For in both dispensations 'vve find God 
giving specific laws, and these often very minute,, 
extending to every relation of life — and discrim- 
inating most nicely between actions. It is true, 
as Whately remarks, the gospel could not go into 
every detail. But it docs, in all cases, erect a 
complete standard, and never abstains from sucli 
an express denunciation of any sin as to leave 
room for doubt. Much less does it, by precept and 
example, ever afford countenance to any thing 
which is an appalling crime in the sight of God. 

(6.) " But the duty of emancipating slaves de- 
pended on the general truths promulgated ; it was 
reasonable, then, to postpone the inculcation of the 



DR. fuller's letters. 217 

duty, until the truths were promulgated on which 
this duty was founded." Be it so. I acquiesce. 
The duty of emancipation, however, is not incul- 
cated at all. The course of the gospel always is, 
to announce God's will, and to prescribe dogmati- 
cally and peremptorily, as becomes the Majesty of 
heaven, whatever duties are exacted by such an- 
nunciations. This it did as to all existing iniqui- 
ties, and as to the abuses of R-oman slavery. But 
it promulgated no truths, and uttered no hint, re- 
quiring emancipation. 

(7.) " But slavery was established by law, and 
could only be abolished by a change in the public 
mind." Answer. The precepts and conduct of 
the apostles were to Christians, and not the public. 
Moreover, how could the public mind be convinced 
that slavery was an appalling sin, when the 
churches everywhere practised it, and were con- 
firmed in it by the apostles ? 

(8.) " But if slavery had been declared to be a 
sin, it would have led to a servile war." Answer. 
This argument forgets God altogether, and his 
power, and makes him abstain from denouncing 
sin through fear of consequences. It conflicts, 
also, with your own declaration, that " if slavery 
be a sin it should be abolished, although the whole 
South would be ruined." Besides, where is the 
ground for this plea ? The masters would be 
either converted or unconverted. If converted, 
♦.hey would obey the command. If unconverted, 
things would remain just as before, and the slaves 
continue in their power. 

(9.) " It is unreasonable for masters at the 
South to object to the gospel method of treating 

19 



218 DR. fuller's letters. 

slavery, since they oppose immediate emancipa- 
tion so strongly." Ansiver. Not only Southern 
masters, but every man of wisdom, (and, I know, 
my brother among them,) deprecates immediate 
abolition. Paley and Robert Hall were peculiarly 
anxious that no one should suppose they thought 
slavery could cease wisely, and beneficially, ex- 
cept by provisions of law, and gradually, under 
the protection of civil government. As soon, how- 
ever, as it is conceded that slavery is to bo gradu- 
ally abolished, it is also conceded that slaveholding 
is not always and in all circumstances a heinous 
sin. 

(10.) " The early church interpreted the teach- 
ing of the gospel as requiring slavery to be abol. 
ished." Answer. Do you mean they under- 
stood the gospel as teaching that slavery is a sin ? 
If so, what early church ? Not the Galatian, nor 
Corinthian, nor any apostolic church, nor, indeed, 
any church, until these radiant days of abolition 
illumination. The cases you cite from a contem- 
porary journal have really nothing to do with the 
question at issue. Suppose a band of marauders 
should seize and carry off yourself and family, 
and the church in Providence, and that you could 
all be redeemed from shocking indignity and out- 
rage only by a ransom. Docs my brother believe 
there is in Carolina a Christian who would hesitate 
about contributing to the sum required ? Exactly 
such are the cases mentioned by you. As for 
slavery, though the preachers of the earlier ages 
are very bold in denouncing all cruelty in masters, 
yet never is slaveholding regarded by them as a 



DR. fuller's letters. 219 

sin.* The excitement of our own days may con- 
vince us what would have been the treatment of 
emancipationists in the Roman Empire. But in 
no single persecution were Christians accused of 
abolition principles, although every sort of crime 
was falsely charged upon them. Masters, in fact, 
allowed them to preach to their slaves so freely as 
to occasion the sarcasm of Celsus in the second 
century, " that the Christians addressed only flocks 
of women, and idiots, and slaves." The truth is, 
that during the apostolic periods, and for centuries 
after, the most holy men and martyrs held slaves ; 
and Eusebius, speaking of the death of his patron, 
Pamphilius, one of the most illustrious of the proto- 
martyrs, A. D. 309, draws a picture which is very 
affecting, and which, in like circumstances, would 
no doubt find many originals at this day among us. 
Pamphilius had a slave named Porphyrius, a young 
man eighteen years of age, whom he educated 
with parental affection, and for whose religious, 
moral, and spiritual edification he provided in every 
way, and to whom he had communicated an ardent 
love for the Redeemer. When Porphyrius heard 
the sentence of death pronounced against his be- 
loved master, he prayed that it might be conceded 
to him to show the last proof of love to him, by 
burying his corpse after the execution of the sen- 
tence had taken place. This request at once ex- 

* In the third century, Origen says, " We wish all slaves 
and children to be trained in the word of God." And at 
the end of the fourth century, Chrysostom thus preaches, 
" Hast thou bought thy slave ? Before all things, enjoin 
him what God would have him do." — Orig. v. Celsus, and 
Chrys. Horn. 



220 DR. fuller's letters. 

cited the wrath of the fanatical governor ; and, 
as he now steadfastly avowed that he was a Chris- 
tian, and was anxious to sacrifice himself, he was 
most cruelly tortured, and at last, with his flesh 
entirely torn from his bones, he was led to the stake. 
He bore every thing with firmness, after he had 
only once, when the fire touched him for the first 
time, called to Jesus the Son of God for help. — 
Eus. de Mar. Palest. 338.* 

(11.) " Slavery was at last abolished through- 
out the whole Roman Empire ; and, by the admis- 
sion of all, this was purely the result of the gos- 
pel." Ansioer. Even if this statement were 
correct, it would not affect our discussion. But I 
submit to you that it is inaccurate. At first, 
myriads of slaves were procured by war ; and 
then the law of self-preservation occasioned the 
greatest severities. When all nations had become 
consolidated into one empire, this source of supply 
almost ceased, and, masters depending on the natu- 
ral increase, slaves became more valuable, and 
their treatment more kind. Through this cause 
the laws were mitigated, and in the reign of the 
Antonines, edicts were published protecting slaves. 
This was in the second century, nor can this 
change be at all ascribed to the gospel. In pro- 
cess of time Christianity seconded the humane 
working of this system, and infused its mild and 
benevolent spirit into the institution, making it quite 
a different thing. But slavery never was abolished 
throughout the Roman Empire. In its latest days 
there were millions of slaves in the empire, and a 

* See Neander's History, Vol. II. p. 415. 



DR. fuller's letters. 221 

living writer thinks, that their number was one of 
the causes which conspired in producing that most 
astonishing catastrophe, the subjugation of Rome 
by the Northern barbarians. Nor did Goth, and 
Frank, and Vandal abolish slavery ; but, by 
perpetual wars among themselves, they revived 
the method of obtaining bondmen by captivity, 
"which," says Gibbon, " had almost ceased under 
the peaceful reigns of the emperors." And thus 
Romans were, in multitudes, made to cultivate the 
lands of the barbarians, who exercised power of 
life and death over them, and often sent, as a 
nuptial present to their daughters, trains of slaves 
chained on wagons to prevent their escape. The 
practice of enslaving prisoners of war continued, 
in truth, until the thirteenth century over Europe, 
and prelates were often masters of hundreds.* 

I have much more to say, my dear brother, but 
must close this controversy. In your last letter 
there is a great deal of truth, and solemn exhorta- 
tion, which I hope may do good. It applies, how- 
ever, entirely to the slave-laws, and to abuses not to 
be defended. In some matters you are grossly mis- 
informed. At least I never heard of the atrocities 
you mention ; such, for example, as the prohibition 
of marriage, and the defence of profligacy in the 
abuse of female slaves for purposes of conveni- 
ence and pecuniary advantage. I regret the in- 
trusion of such statements into your letters, and 
yet I am not surprised at it. I have several times 
had under my roof individuals, once abolitionists, 

* See Gibbon ; and Moreri, " Esclavage.^* See, tooj 
Blackwood for Dec, Art. Guizot. 

19* 



222 DR. fuller's letters. 

and who, on examining for themselves, have been 
amazed at the calumnies by which their minds 
had been poisoned from childhood. And if the 
Author of the Moral Science credits these libels, 
what are we to expect from the ignorant, and 
young, and impetuous, women, and girls, and 
children, whom the agitators at the North gather 
nightly at their feet ? 

After admitting and deploring much abuse of 
slavery at the South, I still humbly hope that God 
sees here the sincerest friends of the African 
race ; nor would we stint our benevolence towards 
them. In a familiar correspondence like this, I 
may be pardoned for saying, that, during twelve 
years, l have devoted the salary given me, when- 
ever at my disposal, to the spiritual instruction of 
the slaves ; and am now doing so. With refer- 
ence to my own servants, their condition is as 
good as I can make it. They are placed under a 
contract, which no instrument of writing could 
make more sacred. By this contract they, on 
their part, perform not one half the work done by 
free laborers ; and I, on my part, am bound to 
employ a missionary to teach and catechize them 
and their children ; to provide them a home, and 
clothes, and provisions, and fuel, and land to plant 
for themselves ; to pay all medical bills ; to guar- 
anty to them all the profits of their skill and 
labor, in their own time ; to protect them as a 
guardian; and to administer to the wants of the 
children, and of those that are sick, and infirm, 
and aged. Such is their state, nor have I any 
idea that they would consent to be removed.. But 
will my brother, or any man at the North, under- 



DR. fuller's letters. 223 

take to remove them, and give me bond and secu- 
rity that their condition shall be improved ? If so, 
let him speak ; and I will then make a proposition 
which shall, at once, and by a test more sure than 
all the writing in the world, determine who is the 
friend of the slave, and who is willing to make 
sacrifices for his good, and how many abolition 
Acaciuses and Paulinuses are ready to be forth- 
coming with church plate for the crucible, and 
even a moiety of their estates " for the redemption 
of captives." 

In conclusion, let me again submit to you, 
whether the broad assertion that slaveholding is 
a sin, must not be modified. Slavery may be a 
sin ; and may be rendered so by the manner in 
which the present master obtained his power, or 
by the abuse of that power, or by the means em- 
ployed to perpetuate that power. But supposing 
there is no sin (as there is manifestly none) in be- 
ing the heir or legatee of this power, then the use 
of it may be most virtuous ; as in the bequests 
mentioned in my third letter ; and in all cases 
where slaves are unprepared for liberty, and the 
master's authority is exercised for their truest 
benefit, temporal and eternal. 

I have done ; and mine has been an irksome 
and cheerless task. You have had the popular 
side of the question, and the Reflector has accom- 
panied your letters with accounts of the enthusiasm 
produced by them at the North. May you ever 
be animated in your pious labors by multitudes 
who love and admire you, — among whom I shall 
always be found, when conscience permits it. For 
me, I have long been schooled to say, " My soul^ 



224 DR. fuller's letters. 

loait thou only upon God ; for my expectation is from 
Him.'^ I expect no enthusiasm from the North, 
and little even from the South. I ask only the 
calm and honest reflection of wise and good men 
for truth, which may not be welcome, but is truth 
for all that. Easily could I have composed papers 
which would have been copied and applauded here, 
but truth forbade it. Nor can I approve of the 
fanaticism of the South, any more than that of the 
North, on the subject which has been before us. 
I only wish, in fact, that, — instead of employino; 
my humble efforts in refuting an untenable, and 
mischievous, and monstrous dogma, — I had been 
occupied in the more congenial work of attempt- 
ing to excite masters to a sense of their fearful 
responsibility, and to the discharge of their solemn 
duties. 

Farewell ! grace and peace be multiplied unto 
you through the knowledge of God and our 
Saviour Jesus Christ. That knowledge, we are 
assured, shall fill this guilty and polluted earth, 
as the waters cover the face of the deep. And it 
is with that knowledge, too, as with those waters, 
when the sea is rolling in. Wave after wave 
breaks, and is driven back ; but the ocean is ad- 
vancing ; and before its majesty and strengtli, 
impotent must every barrier prove ; — vainly shall 
nations rage, and rulers take counsel together, and 
all the kings of the earth set themselves, saying, 
Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further, and here 
shall thy proud billows bo stayed. 

Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding 
abundantly above all that we ask or think, ac, 
cording to the power that worketh in us — unto 



DR. fuller's letters. 225 

Him be glory in the church, by Christ Jesus, 
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. 

Dear brother, most affectionately vours, 

R. FULLER. 
/• 

P. S. As it does not belong to this argument, 
I have said nothing of your remark, that you 
" never could, without doing violence to your con- 
science, do any thing towards the establishment 
in a heathen land, of a church into which slavery 
could by any means find admittance." When it 
is considered, however, that you speak this as 
President of the Convention, and that in India 
there are millions of slaves, your observation is 
of vast importance ; and the public ought to be 
informed by the Board at once, whether, in refer- 
ence to slavery in the East, our missionaries are 
required to pursue a course different from that 
which, you admit, was pursued in the Roman 
Empire, by Christ and the apostles. Upon this 
point I do respectfully, but earnestly, request, that 
the highly and universally esteemed gentlemen 
constituting the Board will not allow ignorance or 
doubt to perplex the Southern mind for a moment. 

R. F. 



226 



DR. WAYLAND'S LETTER. 



TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. 

My dear Brothek — 

It is needless to assure you that I have read 
your letters in reply to mine on Domestic Slavery, 
with profound attention and unfeigned admiration. 
To the acuteness of one profession and the learning 
of another, in both of which you have attained to 
the highest distinction, you have here added a fer- 
vor of eloquence and a richness of illustration pe- 
culiarly your own. Never before, I presume, has 
the defence of slavery on Christian principles been 
so ably conducted. Never before, I think, has any 
thing been written so admirably calculated to make 
a favorable impression on those who hold the oppo- 
site opinions. Nor is the singular ability displayed 
in this discussion by any means its highest recom- 
mendation. The warm spirit of philanthropy 
which pervades every part of your argument, 
must melt away every prejudice by which it could 
be resisted ; while the love to God and the rever- 
ence for his word which are everywhere so appa- 
rent, must, I am sure, give you a place in the 
affections of every true disciple of our common 
Lord. If slavery cannot be defended by such an 



DR. wayland's letter 227 

advocate, I shall believe that the defence of it 
must be hopeless. 

Si Pergama dextrft. 
Defend! possent, etiam h^c defensa faissent 

While, however, I say this, and I say it from 
my heart, I do not perceive that you have over- 
thrown a single position which I have attempted to 
establish. It was not, therefore, until quite lately 
that I resolved to offer any thing by way of re- 
joinder. As, however, with your usual courtesy, 
you have intimated a desire that I should close, as 
you had commenced the correspondence, I shall 
avail myself of your liberal suggestion. It will 
not be my intention to present any new argument, 
or introduce any new matter into the discussion, 
but rather to state the points of difference and coin- 
cidence between us, so that the conclusions at 
which we have both arrived may be the more 
clearly presented to the view of those who may 
perchance take an interest in the correspondence. 

Before I proceed, I ask the privilege of offering 
a few remarks explanatory of two or three pas- 
sages at which you have properly taken exception. 

1. In my second letter I supposed, for the sake 
of illustration, that I had murdered you and re- 
duced your wife and children to slavery. You 
think that this passage will lead to the belief that 
I intend to institute a comparison between the 
moral condition of those who hold slaves in the 
Southern States, and those engaged in the slave- 
trade on the coast of Affica. Should such an 
opinion be formed, I should sincerely regret it ; for, 
in all truth, I declare that it never entered my mind 



228 DR. wayland's letter. 

to institute any such comparison. I do most ear- 
nestly protest against such a use being made of 
any thing I have ever either thought, or said, or 
written. I merely intended by this illustration to 
show, that neither from the manner in which this 
power originated, nor from the manner in which it 
is perpehialed, is any right created. It went to this 
extent and no farther. 

Here, however, that I may avoid the necessity 
of referring to this topic again, permit me to say 
that the analogy which you suggest between this 
case and that in which our present title to land 
may be good, although the original title may have 
been vicious, is not to my mind conclusive. The 
rule in law and equity on this subject, I suppose 
to be the following. The possession of property is 
a bar to molestation until some one who can show a 
better title presents himself, and 720 longer. The 
rightful oivner may always oust me, how long 
soever I may have held possession. Now, in the 
case of slavery, the rightful owner is always pres- 
ent, and has never relinquished his claim. He 
has a better right to himself than any one else can 
possibly have, and this right he has never either 
forfeited or alienated. My possession bars my 
neighbor from stealing him from me, but it is no 
bar to the claim of the man to himself. I submit 
it to you as a lawyer, whether this be not the prin- 
ciple which rules in the case. 

2. In my seventh letter there is another illustra- 
tion which I also desire to correct, although you 
have not alluded to it. In order to exhibit my 
view of the manner in which I suppose the duty 
of emancipation might be performed, I introduced 



DR. wayland's letter. 229 

the case of a person who had dishonestly obtained 
possession of the property of another. I desire to 
alter it, so as to suppose the owner to have become 
possessed of property 7iot knowing that he held it 
wrongfully, and then to be convinced of the inva- 
lidity of his title. This is all that is necessary 
for my purpose, and in this form I do not see that 
it is liable to give offence. 

3. In the postscript to your last letter, you allude 
to the remark which I made touching the princi- 
ples by which I must be guided in the propagation 
of the gospel among the heathen, in so far as it 
was connected with this subject. Previously to 
the reception of your letter, I had prepared a note 
explanatory of my views, which, from several 
sources, I learned were liable to be misunderstood. 
What I meant to say was simply this. I could 
never, with a good conscience towards God, do an 
act which, directly or by legitimate inference, 
should render me a party to the introduction of 
slavery into a heathen country. My mind was at 
the time directed to the Karens, our principal mis- 
sionary field, among whom slavery does not exist, 
and it was really in reference to them that the re- 
mark was made. The subsequent sentences, in 
which I allude to the opinions of slaveholders on 
this subject, sufficiently indicate my meaning. 
If, however, I were preaching the gospel to the 
heathen in a country where slavery formed a part 
of the social organization, I should not make abo- 
lition a condition of native church membership, but 
should leave the principles of the gospel faithfully 
inculcated to work out the extinction of sla- 
very. Such I believe to be the mode inculcated 

20 



230 DR. WAYLAND S LETTER. 

by apostolical example. Suffer me, also, to add, 
that I did not by any means intend to write as 
President of the Convention. To have done so 
would have been a gross impertinence. My rea- 
son for alluding to the office was simply this. 1 
had perceived, from published correspondence, 
that opinions on this subject were considered by 
many of our brethren to affect eligibility to any 
office in the convention. I felt, therefore, called 
upon, in honor, immediately to avow what my 
opinions were. 

Having thus disposed of this preliminary matter, 
I address myself at once to the consideration of the 
argument before us. 

In the first place, my dear brother, permit me to 
remark, that the more frequently I have read your 
letters, the more deeply have I been impressed with 
the coincidence of opinion that exists between us. 
The reasonings which wo employ are dissimilar. 
We arrive at our conclusions by different trains of 
argument, but the conclusion seems to me almost 
precisely the same. From your reasons I often 
dissent, and sometimes dissent totally ; but in the 
results to which you are led I perceive but little to 
which I can object. The proposition which you 
prove, and to which, as you repeatedly assert, you 
strictly confine yourself, is this, to be the holder of 
slaves is not always and everywhere a sin ; and 
hence you infer that the simple holding men in 
bondage ought not to be a ground of ecclesiastical 
excommunication. Now, if you refer to my third 
letter, you will find all this repeatedly and explicitly 
asserted. This you say is the whole matter that 
you intend to discuss. As, therefore, I had affirmed 



DR. WAYLAND'S LETTER. 231 

the same truth, and you disclaim the affirmation of 
any thing else, it is not remarkable that our con- 
clusions should be really identical. 

There is, however, as I have intimated, a differ- 
ence in the grounds on which our opinions rest. 
And here you will, I know, permit me to observe, 
that your argument would have been clearer to my 
understanding, if you had kept in mind the distinc- 
tion between right and wrong, and innocence and 
guilt. This distinction seems to me essential to 
any complete conception of the matter in dispute. 
I do not remember an allusion to it in the whole 
course of your argument. Being from this cause 
frequently unable to discover which of their two 
meanings you attach to the words crime, sin, moral 
evil, I have sometimes been much embarrassed in 
attempting to define the position which you intend- 
ed to defend. Supposing, however, that we agree 
as to the truth of your assertion that slavery does 
not always involve sin, understanding sin to mean 
guilt, I shall dismiss at once this branch of the dis- 
cussion. The only question between us, then, is 
this : is slavery a Violation of the relations which 
God has established among men ; that is, is it a 
moral wrong. I think that even here we are not 
so much at variance as at first sight it might ap- 
pear. 

The question that first presents itself is the follow- 
ing: What is slavery ? In the answer to this question 
we seem to differ widely, but the difference is main- 
ly a matter of terminology. You define slavery 
to be the right to oblige another to labor for us 
without his contract or consent. I consent to this defi- 
nition, with the liberty to add, that it also includes the 



232 DR. wayland's letter. 

right to all the means necessary to establish and 
perpetuate tlie original right, and that it thus in- 
cludes the right to control the intellectual, social, 
and moral nature of man, in so far as it is neces- 
sary to render the original right available. 

Suffer me to explain my view of the subject in 
a very few words. " Slavery," says Dr. Paley, 
" is the right to oblige another to labor for us with- 
out his contract or consent." But what, according 
to the same author, is the meaning of oUige ? "A 
man is obliged when he is urged by a violent mo- 
tive, resulting from the command of another."* 
The right of slavery is therefore the right to urge 
another man by a violent motive resulting from my 
own conwiand, to labor for me icithout Jiis contract or 
consent. Now I must say that to the best of my 
understanding, the conferring of such a right does 
really confer all that I have asserted. You grant 
that it confers the power, but that it does not confer 
the right to use it. I am almost ashamed to say 
that I do not clearly understand this distinction in 
such a case. The right, as above explained, is the 
right to urge another by violent motives, resulting not 
from the law of God, or the social laws of man, but 
resulting from my own command. My command 
dictates both the kind and the degree of violence ; 
and I do not see, that in the conferring of this right, 
any limitations are imposed upon the exercise of 
my own will. I do not perceive how we can ex- 
clude from this definition the grant of all the rights 
necessary to secure and establish it, including ab- 
solute control over the intellectual, moral, and so- 

* Moral Philosophy, Book 2, Chap. 2. 



DR. wayland's letter. 233 

cial nature of the slave. That this has always 
been claimed as a portion of the rights of the mas- 
ter, is, I suppose, evident, from the whole history 
of domestic slavery. When, therefore, I have 
spoken of slavery, I have spoken of the whole 
system, originating in the claim to hold our fellow- 
men in bondage, and terminating in those various 
abuses inflicted on slaves, wherever this system 
exists. Of course I do not pretend that every 
slaveholder carries out his principles to their prac- 
tical results. I am speaking of what the assump- 
tion necessarily involves, and of the effects which, 
as a system, legitimately flow from it. 

From this view of slavery, however, you wholly 
dissent, and declare that it involves nothing, absolute- 
ly nothing but mere personal bondage, with the right 
to oblige the enslaved person to labor. You say, 
*' Slavery is only bondage." ''Slavery is nothing 
more than the condition of one who is deprived of 
political power, and does service without his con- 
tract and consent, but yet cheerfully and happily, 
and for a compensation reasonable and certain, paid 
in modes of return best for the slave himself. With 
what is strictly physical liberty the master inter- 
feres no more, in such cases, than you do with a 
hired servant." Letter 3d. 

Again, " A right to the service of a man without 
his contract conveys no additional right but those 
proper and necessary to the original right. But it 
is not proper and necessary to this original right that 
a human being be deprived of any right which is 
justly his as an immortal, intelligent, moral, social, 
and fallen creature. Therefore, a right to the 
service of a man without his contract or consent, 

20* 



234 DR. wayland's letter. 

docs not justify any wrong done to his mind, soul, or 
domestic relations. ^^ 

This, I confess, is to me a new view of the in- 
stitution of domestic slavery, and I must add that 
it pleases me incomparably better than any that I 
have ever seen. Slavery, according to this defini- 
tion, confers on the master no right whatever, be- 
yond merely that of obliging the slave to labor. 
It gives him no right over the slave as an immortal, 
intellectual, moral, social, and fallen creature, and 
justifies no lorong done to his mind, soul, or domestic 
relations. In all these respects, then, slavery makes 
no difference between the slave and any other 
man. His condition, bating the obligation to labor 
for his master, is precisely that of a freeman. He 
has just the same right as any other man to his 
wife and children, to all the means of education, 
to the opportunity for intellectual cultivation, to 
the privilege of worshipping God when and as he 
chooses, to the trial by jury, to be received as a 
witness in a court of justice, or in an ecclesiastical 
tribunal ; in a word, to the full benefit of equal 
law in all cases whatsoever, save only that he is 
under obligation to render reasonable and cheerful 
service to his master. The separation of children 
from their parents, of husbands from their wives, 
by the domestic slave-trade, and, in fact, the whole 
system of legislation and practice by which a dis- 
tinction is made between slaves and freemen, finds 
no apology in this view of slavery ; and it is, like 
any other case of causeless oppression, wholly 
indefensible, a wrong, and a sin against God. Here 
then we entirely agree. I believe all this. We 
will not contend about words. I care not what 



DR. wayland's letter. 235 

you call this wrong. I may call it slavery. You 
call it by another name. If, however, we agree 
in what we affirm of its character in the sight of 
God, I am perfectly content. Here then is a very 
large part of what I call the system of slavery, 
concerning: which we do not differ in the least. 
This is certainly a very important point of agree- 
ment. 

We then have arrived together to this conclu- 
sion : every respect in which the intellectual, moral, 
social, or domestic condition of a slave is made to 
differ from that of any other man, is indefensible, 
unauthorized, and wrong. We have next to pro- 
ceed and consider slavery in the restricted sense 
in which you understand it ; since it is only here 
that there can be any difference of opinion between 
us. 

Here I am reminded of a remark which you 
have frequently made, that this is purely an ab- 
stract question, a question of simple right, and is 
by no means affected by the manner in which a 
master may use his slave. He may use him cruel- 
ly, but this does not prove that he has not a right 
to hold him as a slave. In this I fully concur, I 
also add, that the question of right is not affected 
by the humanity of the master. He might use his 
slave cruelly, but this would not disprove, and he 
might use him humanely, and this would not estab- 
lish his right. It is a question of ownership, just 
like that of the ownership of any other property. 
If the question should be brought before a court 
and jury, whether I was the owner of a particular 
horse, it would affect the issue in no manner what- 
ever to prove that I had used him either kindly or 



236 DR. WAYLAND S LETTER. 

cruelly. Nor, again, is this a question respecting 
the treatment of men in any particular condition, 
it is a" question respecting the lawfulness of the 
condition itself. Thus, suppose I had kept a child 
blindfolded from infancy, so that he had never 
seen the light. I might treat him very well as a 
Hind child. I might say that he gave me much 
more trouble, and was of far less service to me 
than a child that had the use of his eyes. All 
this might be, but the question would still return, 
why do you not strip off the bandage ? I am 
bound to show, not that I treat him well in this 
condition, but the reason why I keep him in this 
condition at all. This abstract view of the case is, 
1 think, specially to be borne in mind at the present 
point of the discussion. 

"The right of slavery is then, as we have seen, 
the right to urge another, by a violent motive re- 
sulting from my own command, to labor for me 
without his contract or consent." This right you 
suppose to be conferred upon us by the precepts of 
the New Testament. These precepts were given 
when men of all nations and colors and grades of 
civilization were in the universal habit of enslav- 
ing each other, and the New Testament confirmed 
them in the right of so doing. And yet more, the 
New Testament was given as our moral statute- 
book to the end of time. We can neither add to 
nor take from it. Whatever permission it gives is 
a universal permission. It is addressed to men as 
men, and hence the right which it thus confers it 
confers on human nature. The right, therefore, 
for which you contend may be, I think, expressed 
truly in these words. Every man has the right to 



DR. wayland's letter. 237 

urge every other man, by a violent motive pro- 
ceeding from his own will, to labor for him with- 
out his contract or consent. 

That this is the meaning of the assertion is evi- 
dent. The only other form in which it could be 
expressed would be the following, ^'^ Masters have the 
right to urge slaves,'^ &c. But the question would 
return, who are masters and who are slaves ? To 
this we must reply, a master is one who has this 
right, and a slave one who is under this obligation. 
The assertion would then be a mere truism. It 
would affirm that he who had this right had it, and 
he who is under this obligation is under it ; leaving 
the matter in dispute just where it found it. 

We must therefore, I think, take the assertion 
in its abstract and unlimited sense, in the form in 
which I have stated it. And here, I am con- 
strained to say, I can by no means agree with 
you. I will not, however, go into extended dis- 
cussion of the subject. The substance of what I 
have to urge may be found in the chapter on Re- 
ciprocity, in the Elements of Moral Science, to 
which you have done me the honor to refer. Suf- 
fer me, however, briefly to offer the following con- 
siderations. 

1. This doctrine is really more alarming than 
any that I have ever known to be inculcated on 
this subject. If this right to oblige another man 
to labor for us is thus given to human nature, it is 
as really and truly given to black men as to white 
men. It authorizes them to enslave us, just as 
much as it authorizes us to enslave them. This 
goes very far beyond any thing that I ever before 
heard claimed for the slaves. I have heard it 



238 DR. WAYLAND S LETTER. 

said, but I never agreed to it, that the slaves had 
a right to rise and emancipate themselves by force ; 
but this goes much farther, and claims for them 
the additional right to enslave their masters. 
Thus, if the slaves of any state or plantation 
should rise and enslave their masters, this precept 
would justify them ; and yet more, the other pre- 
cepts, according to your interpretation, would 
oblige the masters as Christians to obey them, 
" doing service from the heart, not only to the 
good and gentle, but also to the f reward." And 
still more, if this be the precept of the New Tes- 
tament, and we are allowed to keep back nothing 
that would be profitable to man, this would be 
the doctrine that ministers of the gospel would be 
specially obliged to inculcate upon slaves. 

But this is not all. This is, as I understand it, 
a precept for human nature. It is revealed by 
God as one of the social laws of man. It is a 
permission given, not to a few men in a portion of 
a single country, but to the whole human race. 
By virtue of it, I have the right to oblige every 
other man to labor for me without his contract or 
consent, /may assert this right to-day. I might 
be well pleased with this permission ; but then 
every other man is, by the same rule, equally au- 
thorized to oblige me to labor for him. The ques- 
tion which shall be the master, and which the 
slave, must be decided by physical strength. And 
after I have subdued him, he has the same right 
as before to enslave me in return. Here then is 
war, war interminable, and war to the knife. Nor 
is this all. While I am obeying the gospel in en- 
slaving him, I am at the same moment disobey- 



DR. wayland's letter. 239 

ing it, in not also allowing him to enslave me. 
Here then is a permission given of which every 
man may avail himself, but of which he cannot 
avail himself without directly violating it. I can 
by no means believe that Jesus Christ, or his apos- 
tles, ever taught such a doctrine as this. And 
here suffer me to remind you, that, if this be an 
argument at all, it is a universal argument. It is 
on the question of abstract right, and is not af- 
fected by the cruelty or kindness by which this 
right may be enforced. It applies to every case 
in which any deviation from the law of perfect 
reciprocity of right is pleaded as a matter of re- 
velation in the New Testament. 

And here, before I leave this part of the subject, 
permit me to remark, that the analogy which you 
have supposed to exist between the innocence of 
despotism and the innocence of slavery, is, to my 
mind, by no means convincing. As you have 
quoted what I have elsewhere said concerning the 
adaptation of different forms of government to dif- 
ferent conditions of humanity, permit me in very 
few words to explain my views on this subject. I 
believe society, and its necessary agent, govern- 
ment, to be an ordinance of God, and necessary to 
the existence of the race ; that the object, the all- 
controlling object of society, is to secure to every 
individual the enjoyment of all his natural rights, 
or the rights conferred upon him as a human being 
by his Creator ; that in every state of society, that 
mode of government is to be preferred which will 
best accomplish this object ; that a government is 
right in just so far as it accomplishes this object; 
it is innocent in just so far as it honestly intends to 



240 PR. wayland's letter. 

accomplish it ; and that, for the accomplishment 
of it, society possesses powers over the individual 
which the individuals of that society do not pos- 
sess over each other. 

Now between institutions so radically unlike, in 
every essential particular, I do not perceive what 
analogy can possibly exist. The one is an ordi- 
nance of God ; this, as it seems to me, cannot, with- 
out absurdity, be affirmed of the other. The one 
is necessary to the existence of the race, the other 
certainly is unnecessary. The paramount object 
of the one is to secure to every man all the rights 
conferred on him by the Creator ; the direct ob- 
ject of the other is to abridge these rights : the one 
acts by protecting the individual against the ag- 
gression of his brother, the other acts by withdraw- 
ing this protection ; the one acts by providing 
means for the universal redress of grievances, the 
other acts by removing the means of redress. 
How any argument from analogy can be drawn 
from institutions so radically dissimilar I am really 
unable to discover. 

But let us return again to our definition of sla- 
very. The right of slavery is the right to urge 
another by a violent motive, resulting from my 
own com.mand, to labor for me without his contract 
or consent. 

I am not certain, my dear brother, that I clearly 
understand the nature of that domestic slavery 
which you defend. If, however, I correctly com- 
prehend your views, the institution which you are 
proposing for our consideration, differs very widely 
from that which you describe in this definition. 
If what you defend be innocent, it will by no 



DR. wayland's letter. 241 

means follow that slavery above defined is innocent 
also. 

The slavery which you hold up to our view, and 
which you contend is innocent, is described in the 
following passages : 

" He (the master) may require the just and 
reasonable service of the slave ; but it is a ser- 
vice exactly such as is due from a servant hired 
for the year or for life." Letter 2d. 

Again. '• In some instances there may be all 
the injustice and heartlessness which you describe, 
while in others the definition of Paley requires no 
addition, but material retrenchment ; for tlie slaves 
are not only watched over with guardian kindness 
and affection, but prefer to remain zvith their mas- 
ters ; so that it cannot he said that they serve him 
without their contract or consent.''^ Letter 3d. 

Again. '^ Slavery is only bondarj-e, and this 
may be voluntary, and by one s ov/n contract, and 
there may be no obligation whatever to labor.'' lb. 

Again, in your last letter, you present us with a 
practical illustration of the form of slavery which 
you defend. " During the past twelve years, I 
have devoted the salary given me, whenever at 
my disposal, to ' the spiritual instruction of the 
slaves, and am now doing so. With reference to 
my own servants, their condition is as good as I 
can make it. They are placed under a contract, 
which no instrument of writing could make more 
sacred. By this contract, they, on their part, per- 
form not one half of the labor performed by free 
laborers ; and I, on my part, am bound to employ 
a missionary to teach and catechise them and their 
children, to provide for them a home, and clothes, 

21 



242 DR. wayland's letter. 

and provisions, and fuel, and land to plant for them- 
selves, to pay all medical bills, to guaranty to 
them all the profits of their labor in their own time, 
to protect them as a guardian, and to administer to 
the wants of the children, and of those that are 
sick, and infirm, and aged. Such is their state, 
and / have no idea that they would consent to he re- 
moved.''^ 

Now I might here remark, that all this is really 
aside from the merits of the question at issue. 
You have frequently reminded me that this was an 
abstract question, and had nothing to do with the 
manner in which the right was exercised. If a 
master uses his slaves kindly, this is surely com- 
mendable ; but this does not at all bear upon the 
question of his right to hold them as slaves at all. 

I will not, however, pause to insist upon this 
point. My object is to direct your attention to the 
fact that the slavery which you defend, is a very 
different institution from that which your definition 
describes. As you truly observe, the definition 
requires "material retrenchment." The condi- 
tion described by the definition, is that of a man 
urged by a violent motive resulting from the com- 
mand of another ; the condition described by these 
quotations, is that of a man whose service may be 
voluntary, and is performed by his own consent. The 
one excludes the idea of contract ; of the other, 
" it cannot be said that they serve him tcithout their 
contract and consent.^' To the one it is essential 
that the man be obliged to labor ; of the other it 
is true that " there may be no obligation whatever 
to labor." Now, these two conditions seem to me 
so essentially dissimilar, that the defence of the one 



DR. WAYLAND^S LETTER. 243 

by no means constitutes a defence of the other. 
The one describes the condition of involuntary ser- 
vitude, the other describes a condition to which in- 
voluntary servitude is by no means essential ; and 
in which, in fact, it frequently does not exist. If a 
man, whether black or white, serve another volun- 
tarily, and would not consent to leave that service, 
here is no invasion of the right of personal liherty. 
It must, however, be a bo7ia fide consent, and not 
merely a consent to do one thing lest he should 
be obliged to do something worse. A man may 
choose that I should blindfold him, and take care 
of him as though he were a blind man. This 
would be a very unwise agreement for both of us, 
but this would be no invasion of his rights. But 
because this is no invasion of his rights, it by no 
means proves that I have the right " to urge men 
by a violent motive, resulting from my own cojnmand,'^ 
to become blindfolded. 

But even this form of what you consider slavery 
you do not justify, or at least you speak of it as an 
institution leading to dangerous consequences. 
Thus you say : " There is, as you remark, quite 
enough abuse of this authority to make me regret 
its general existence.'^ Letter 2d. 

Again : " You must already have perceived that 
speaking abstractly of slavery, I do not consider 
its perpetuation proper, even if it were possible.^' 
Letter 3d. 

Here again I am pleased to observe that our sen- 
timents almost exactly coincide. Even this modi- 
fication of slavery, if indeed that be the modifica- 
tion of a thing from which its essential elements 
are excluded, you consider dangerous, impossible to 



244 DR, WAYLAND S LETTER. 

he perpetuated, and improper. To this I fully sub- 
scribe, and I rejoice that these truths have found 
an advocate so much better able to expound them 
than myself. 

If now we look back over the course of these 
remarks, I think we may easily discover the man- 
ner in which, commencing so widely asunder, we 
have come at last so nearly to coincide. In the 
first place, excluding from your definition of slavery 
all right to interfere with the intellectual, moral, 
social, and domestic condition of man, and admitting 
that for such interference slavery furnishes neither 
excuse nor palliation, you limit the institution 
which you defend to the mere right to oblige an- 
other to labor for us without his contract or con- 
sent. In the second place, as it seems to me, fall- 
ing within your own definition, and " materially 
retrenching" from it, you defend a condition which 
may be voluntary, limited ly contract, and one 
luliich the laborer would not consent to relinquish. In 
the third place, you affirm that this condition, even 
thus modified, could not properly be perpetuated. 
In how much soever then we may differ in our 
course of reasoning, the practical conclusions to 
which we arrive are singularly coincident. 

Where there is so substantial practical agree- 
ment, it might seem that farther examination of 
the argument was unnecessary. I find, moreover, 
that I am in danger of extending this letter to an 
unreasonable length. I will not, therefore, pre- 
tend to examine your argument from the Scrip, 
tures in detail, but shall merely remark very 
briefly upon some of the points on which, as I sup- 
pose, the controversy mainly hinges. 



245 

Your argument drawn from the Old Testament 
in favor of slavery, is, I think, two-fold. In the 
first place, you infer that slavery cannot be wrong, 
that is, cannot be a violation of the relations which 
God has established, because the holiest men, both 
in ancient and modern times, have both held slaves 
and also spoken in favor of slavery. This argu- 
ment, I fear, will not bear generalization. I have 
already alluded to the case of Dr. Stiles. You 
also remember that John Newton, for some years 
after his conversion, was the captain of a slave- 
ship, and was thus doing acts which now would 
condemn him to the gallows, without being aware 
that he was doing wrong. This surely by no 
means proves that the slave-trade is innocent. 

Secondly, you infer that slavery cannot be a 
wrong because God gave the various precepts con- 
cerning it, which you quote from the laws of 
Moses. 

To this I have replied, that he gave various pre- 
cepts in the same laws respecting other practices 
manifestly wrong, and that, therefore, your infer- 
ence is not legitimate. 

Polygamy and divorce come under precisely the 
same class of moral wrongs as slavery. You de- 
scribe them as acts " conflictino; with the relations 
designed at first by God between the sexes." I 
consider slavery to be wrong precisely because 
" it conflicts with the relations designed at first by 
God between" man and man. The generic char- 
acter of the two acts is, that they " conjlict with the 
relations designed at first by God;^' their specific 
difference is, that in the one case the conflict is 
with the relations designed by God between the 

21* 



246 DR. wayland's letter. 

sexes ; in the other it is with the relations between 
man and man. 

Yet God did not prohibit polygamy and divorce 
among the ancient Hebrews, hut enacted laws to 
regulate them. These practices were neverthe- 
less clearly wrong, and Christ condemned and for- 
bade them. I thence infer that an act may be 
wrong, a violation of the relations which God has 
established, and yet, at a particular time, he may 
not prohibit it, and may even enact laws concern, 
ing it. You say Christ forbade these wrongs, but 
did not forbid slavery. Very true. But this, I 
think, does not aifect the general fact above stated ; 
nay, it rather confirms it. Christ's condemnation 
of these institutions clearly shows them to have 
been wrong, and wrong from the beginning; but 
this only demonstrates the truth, that it is not in- 
consistent with the dealings of God with men, to 
give precepts regulating a practice in itself wrong, 
but concerning which he has not seen fit, at pres- 
ent, explicitly to reveal his will. 

It would be improper in this closing letter to 
examine at length your argument from the New 
Testament. I could not do so without introducinof 
new matter mto the discussion. I am as confident 
as I usually am in any of the conclusions of my 
understanding, that I have interpreted the teach- 
ings of our Saviour and his apostles correctly, i 
must content myself with referring you in general 
to what I have already stated. I shall here very 
briefly allude to the different principles on which 
our argument rests. 

Your argument, I think, intends to establish the 
following points : 



DR. WAYLAND S LETTER. 247 

1. God could not consistently with his attributes, 
in making a revelation, be silent as to any course 
of action and also give precepts concerning it, and 
yet inculcate principles in the same revelation, in- 
tended to subvert and abolish it. 

2. God has been thus silent and has thus given 
precepts respecting the institution of slavery, and 

3. Therefore, God has inculcated no such prin- 
ciples. Hence, you consider that by the apostolic 
directions on this subject the character of God is 
committed to the innocence of this institution ; and 
to suppose it wrong is to suppose him to deny him- 
self. This argument you have enforced with great 
copiousness of learning, and with all the advan- 
tages of an eloquence which I admire, but which 
I have no power to imitate. It moves me strongly 
every time I read it, but I must say it does not 
convince me. Suffer me briefly to hint at the rea- 
sons of my dissent. 

1. I do not believe that we are competent thus 
to decide upon the manner in which God can or 
may teach us. I am confident, first of all, that 
God is consistent with himself, and that the Bible 
is his own revelation, and that therefore I can best 
justity his ways by receiving in humility all that 
he has there made known to me. You very well 
ask, '• When the Scriptures have been received 
as a revelation, and the inquiry is about their 
meaning, how does it sound to affirm authorita- 
tively as to what they ought to teach;" and I 
may add, to affirm authoritatively in what manner 
they shall teach it ? The adoption of this principle 
has always led to error. Reasoning thus, you 
know that Luther is said to have rejected the 



248 DR. wayland's letter. 

Epistle of Jamos from the canon, because he sup- 
posed that the views of faith taught by this apos- 
tle, could not have been dictated by the same spirit 
which indited the Epistle to the Galatians. 

I take a different view of this subject. I sup- 
pose the Most High to deal with us, as with beings 
endowed with an intelligent and moral nature ; 
and, therefore, that he frequently makes known to 
us his will by teaching us the relations in which 
we stand, and the obligations thence resulting, 
without specifying to us the particular acts which 
he intends thereby to forbid. Whatever our rea- 
son clearly perceives to be contradictory to a re- 
lation which he has established, is thus forbidden. 
In this manner I suppose God to have made known 
his will concerning slavery. Again, on the other 
hand, I find in the Bible the precepts concerning 
masters and slaves which we have both quoted. I 
receive both of these as a revelation from God ; 
and I hence conclude that it is consistent with the 
attributes of God to teach us in this manner. 

I ask myself, did he ever before teach in this 
manner ? I find that he frequently did so under 
the old dispensation. I ask again, is it in analogy 
with his teaching in the New Testament that he 
should teach rather by principle than by precept? 
I find upon inquiry that this is there his ordinary 
mode of teaching, I ask again, is there any spe- 
cial reason why this mode of teaching should be 
adopted in this particular case ? I find that this 
mode is specially adapted to the removal of a social 
evil, and that no other could, on the principles of 
human nature, be reasonably employed. Hence, 
I conclude that slavery is by the word of God for- 



DR. WAYLAND-S LETTER. 249 

bidden, but that the word of God intends to re- 
move it, not by immediate proclamation, as must 
be the case if it were treated preceptively, but by 
applying the principles of the gospel to the con- 
sciences of men, and thus, by changing the senti- 
ments of the society, gradually and kindly work 
its entire extermination. 

In the use which you have made of the saying 
of Lord Eldon, I think you have not taken notice 
of the point which I intended to illustrate. The 
question is not whether, if Lord Eldon had violated 
plainly a plain law, he would have been punished. 
This would have depended on the firmness of the 
judge, and the honesty of the jury. The question 
is, whether, the law being as it is, he could not 
have taught another man how to violate the whole 
intention of the law, and yet escape conviction, 
and thus make it necessary that the law should be 
amended. Nor is this really the question at issue. 
It is, in fact, this. Suppose a law forbidding for- 
gery had been made by a Roman emperor in the 
time of Christ, and the law, from the constitution 
of things, could neither be altered nor amended ; 
would Lord Eldon, or any other man, find the 
slightest difficulty in doing with impunity the very 
acts which the law intended to forbid ? You think 
that my views of interpretation lead to laxity of 
morals. To me, their tendency seems exactly the 
reverse. In my view, a principle is like the flaming 
sword, which, turning every way, guards on every 
side the tree of life ; while a precept, made only 
for one age, and looking only in one direction, 
leaves the approach in every other direction un- 
guarded and defenceless. 



250 DR. wayland's letter. 

While, however, there seems to be this wide 
theoretical difference between us, I again perceive 
that, practically, we very nearly agree. While 
you hold that slavery is permitted, nay, sanctioned 
by God ; and that, hence, to have taught any thing 
at variance with this permission would have been 
to deny himself; you still express your views of 
this institution in such language as the following : 
" If you had asserted the great danger of confiding 
such irresponsible power in the hands of any man, 
I should at once have assented. There is quite 
enough abuse of this authority to make me regret 
lis general existence.^^ Again, "you must already 
have perceived that, speaking abstractly of slavery, 
I do not consider its perpetuation proper, even if it 
were possible. Nor let any one ask, why not per- 
petuate it if it be not a sin? The Bible informs us 
what man is, and among siich beings, irresponsible 
poiver is a trust too easily and too frequently abused.'^ 
It may not be proper for me to ask how these asser- 
tions are to be reconciled with the views to which 
I have above referred. I cannot, however, but 
observe, that you regret the general existence of 
an institution, of which the general existence is, as 
you affirm, both sanctioned and permitted by God 
himself ; and you declare that its perpetuation 
would be both impossible and improjoer. These 
opinions you must have derived, certainly, from 
principles, for there is, as we both grant, no direct 
prohibition on the subject. Nay more, you inform 
us tliat these principles are derived from the Bible, 
and that they result from what the Bible teaches us of 
ike character of man. Now this looks to me marvel- 
lously like controlling a permission by a principle. 



DR. wayland's letter. 251 

In fact, I do not perceive that the ground which it 
covers is not precisely that which is covered by my 
illustration of the case of a young man and his 
parent, which you have considered so strangely 
unfortunate. 

Before leaving this subject, suffer me, my dear 
brother, to ask you whether there be not reason to 
apprehend that your views on this whole subject 
will be misunderstood ? I very much fear that 
when slavery is spoken of at the South, it is spoken 
of, not as you define and defend it, but as it actu- 
ally exists ; and I perceive that it is boldly upheld 
as a thing desirable, and right — an institution both 
to be perpetuated, and even at all hazards to be ex- 
tended. I ask, is there not reason to fear that, on 
your authority, the attributes of God will be ap- 
pealed to, to sanction, not the abstract idea of it, 
which you believe to be in harmony with the word 
of God, but the tuhole system, just as it exists? Is it 
not important that you should express your views 
explicitly on this subject, so that the word of God 
may not, on your authority, be used to support what 
you believe it explicitly to condemn ? 

And now, to sum up the whole, let us briefly 
enumerate the points of agreement between us. 
In the first place, we both affirm that to hold slaves 
is not of necessity a guilt, and under peculiar cir- 
cumstances it may not be a wrong ; it is, therefore, 
in itself, no scripture ground for ecclesiastical ex- 
communication. In the second place, you affirm 
that a slave is entitled to the same privileges, intel- 
lectual, moral, and domestic, as any other man ; 
and, of course, that all that part of the system 
which interferes with those privileges, is wrong, 



252 DR. wayland's letter. 

and ought to be abolished. In the effort to effect 
this abolition, we can both co-operate. In the third 
place, you give us, in your own case, an example 
of what you believe to be the duty of masters. 
You teach your servants to read, you instruct them 
in the gospel of Christ, and by every means in your 
power are laboring to improve their intellectual, 
moral, social, and domestic condition. I do not 
here allude to your care of their physical comforts, 
for you could never be a selfish or unkind man. 
We can both unite in the effort to render all slave- 
holders in this country just such masters as you. 
Thirdly, you believe it neither possible nor proper 
to perpetuate this institution. It must, then, in 
your view, cease. In my judgment, it would be a 
great calamity were it to terminate by violence, or 
without previous moral and social preparation. In 
the effort to prepare both the masters and slaves for 
this event, we can cordially co-operate. I neither 
ask you, nor any other man, to do any more. In 
the effort to accomplish these results, I pledge you 
my services to any extent that you are willing to 
accept of them. 

In the doing of all this, I am well aware that 
great difficulties are to be encountered. I believe 
that the first labor must be the labor of prepara- 
tion ; but I think it must be a labor directed spe- 
ciJicaUy to this end. I fear, with you, that the eman- 
cipation of the slaves in the West Indies is not 
accomplishing what was expected. I say I fear ; 
for the reports are so absolutely contradictory, 
that I am unable to come to a decided opinion. 
But, aside from this case, all history informs us 
that absolute liberty is too violent a stimulant to be 



DR. wayland's letter, 253 

safely administered to a race who have long been 
bred in slavery. They must be taught and be- 
come accustomed to the responsibilities which it 
involves, before they can use it aright. All this 
requires caution, boldness, philanthropy, and hum- 
ble but earnest trust in God. " Prayers and 
pains," said Elliot, " with the blessing of God can 
do any thing." I do not pretend to dictate as to the 
manner in which this is to be done. This I leave 
to you, who are so much better able to judge. All 
I ask is, that the views which you entertain, so far 
as I understand them, be carried out into practice ; 
and, in doing this, I here promise to give you my 
poor aid to any extent that I am able to render it. 
Here I close this long and, I fear, wearisome 
letter. This is the first time in my life — I hope it 
may be the last — in which it has fallen to my lot 
to engage in controversy. Be assured, my dear 
brother, that it has given me pain whenever I have 
been obliged to differ from one for whom I cherish 
so affectionate a regard. For that Christian ur- 
banity with which you treated whatever I have 
written, from my heart I thank you. If I have in 
any manner been able to avoid the errors into 
which many have fallen who have treated on this 
subject, I ascribe it mainly to the influence of your 
example, and to the unfeigned esteem which I en- 
tertain for your character, as a gentleman and a 
scholar, a clergyman and a Christian. Or rather, 
if we have been enabled without bitterness to ex- 
press our views to each other on a subject which 
is so liable to arouse the worst passions of our 
fallen nature, let us ascribe it all to that love of 
God shed abroad in our hearts, which teaches us 

22 



254 DR. wayland's letter. 

to treat as a brother every disciple of our common 
Lord, though he may embrace opinions in many 
respects differing from our own. God grant that 
we may both meet in that world where neither of 
us shall any more see through a glass darkly, but 
where we shall see as we are seen, and know as 
we are known. 

I am, my dear brother, yours with every senti- 
ment of affection. 

The Author of the Moral Science. 



\f 






"^^r 



'^. 



,0 a 



it 






\ > o '^ " 















-, ■^ 



.0 o 



G 



>\ 













«/-. 






.\ 



,0o^ 



^. * 



.0 s. 



vO 



c\ 









* 8 1 A * ' .^-^^"^ 






.^^^ 






^.>> .#' 



,V 



A 



o ^/ 



.6^- 















j:^ 












* tf I A-^ ■ \\:> 



c^. 



,^\ 






A 



^V aV 



A-^ %^ 



-p 






9p 
^2 



,^^ '•" 



■o 



-(■ <r' 



^A s^ 



0- 



>" V 



r^. 



^. 



-\^ 



A^' '^r 






-^ 



>0 o^ 



% .<^' 






,0-' ^o 






I -^ 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





012 026 975 6 






